Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the separate opinions in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR (n=106, from November 1998 until September 2006) reveals the following patterns: (a) judges elected in respect of the new member States of Central and Eastern Europe deliver significantly less separate opinions than judges elected in respect of the old member States; (b) national bias in the sense that the judges take a more benevolent position when their home country is the respondent State does in fact occur, and more so among ad hoc judges than among elected judges; and (c) the lawyer-statesman's perspective seems to prevail in the majority judgments while human rights activism finds an outlet in separate opinions. Interviews with 19 judges enrich these data with insights into the social and institutional context of judicial decision making in the Grand Chamber.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The positions individual judges of the European Court of Human Rights take in controversial Grand Chamber cases are analyzed according to two dimensions, i.e. majority judgment or minority opinion, and human rights activism vs. lawyer-statesmanship. The research reveals that the first dimension is about group think, which turns out to be correlated with judges elected in respect of new member states vs. old member states, i.e. relatively more, respectively less majority positions. The second dimension is related to the kind of professional legal practise the judge was involved in prior to election to the ECHR.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the past few years the UK prosecutory authorities have made far greater use of indeterminate, exemplary and preventive sentencing, notably in relation to sexual offences, violent crime and anti-social behaviour and terrorism, since the bombing of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001. There is a new censorious language of public safety, risk and security used in criminal justice circles which is in a tense relationship with a concern for civil liberties and human rights. In addition to this shift in judicial and criminal justice discourse and practice is the development of ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders), and the increased use of surveillance powers. This paper will critically examine the relationship between Article 8 (Respect for Private Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms and current trends in UK criminal justice policy.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In December 1982 Margaret Thatcher’s government suffered its first and only major defeat in the House of Commons during her first Parliament. Joining the opposition, Tory backbenchers rejected proposed changes to the immigration rules. The rule change would have extended to female citizens the right to bring their husbands or fiancés to the UK. The opposition argued the rule did not go far enough – the rule change should have included not only female citizens, but legally settled immigrant women as well. The backbench Tories argued that the rule change liberalized policy too much. This result is not remarkable per se, but leaves unexplored an alternative hypothesis as to why the government lost the vote. A motivating factor in the rule change was an expected ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that the extant ban on women bringing in their husbands or fiancés was sexual discrimination and violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The backbenches in both major parties resisted European integration, and the rule change signified a major intrusion of European jurisprudence. Did the government lose a vote on immigration or a referendum on Europe?After providing general background on the immigration vote, I consult the division on the 1982 vote on the immigration rules, identifying each Member of Parliament voting against the government. I begin with each member of theConservative Party voting against the government, and then, a random sample of members of the Labor and Liberal parties also voting 'no.' The number of opposition members chosen is made on grounds of practicality. I analyze constituency data for each Conservative MP collected from the 1981 census Parliamentary Constituency Monitors, ranking the MPs in order of the number of immigrants from the New Commonwealth. Conservative MPs from constituencies with the highest concentration of immigrants in their party should all voteagainst the immigration rules. I then inspect parliamentary debates to identify anti-immigrant MPs and the most virulent anti-European MPs. Based on these data I determine whether immigration or Europe was the determining factorin MPs' vote.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript