What do you think?
Rate this book
When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights: Conflict or Harmony?
The notion of conflict rests at the heart of the judicial function. Judges are routinely asked to resolve disputes and defuse tensions. Yet, when judges are called upon to adjudicate a purported conflict between human rights, they face particular challenges and must address specific questions. Some of these concern the very existence of human rights conflicts. Can human rights really conflict with one another, in terms of mutual incompatibility? Or should human rights be interpreted in harmony with one another? Other questions concern the resolution of real conflicts. To the extent that human rights do conflict, how should these conflicts be resolved? To what extent is balancing desirable? And if it is desirable, which understanding of balancing should judges employ? This book seeks to provide both theoretical and practical answers to these questions.
When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Conflict or Harmony? debates both the existence and resolution of human rights conflicts, in the specific context of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The contributors put forth principled and pragmatic arguments and propose theoretical as well as practical approaches, whilst firmly embedding their proposals in the case law of the European Court. Doing so, this book provides concrete ways forward in the ongoing debate on conflicts of rights at Europe's human rights court.
When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Conflict or Harmony? debates both the existence and resolution of human rights conflicts, in the specific context of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The contributors put forth principled and pragmatic arguments and propose theoretical as well as practical approaches, whilst firmly embedding their proposals in the case law of the European Court. Doing so, this book provides concrete ways forward in the ongoing debate on conflicts of rights at Europe's human rights court.
286 pages, Hardcover
Published September 13, 2017
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 9, 2025
This book is divided into two main parts: General Approaches and Specific Conflicts.
The first part focuses on theory. It discusses whether human rights truly conflict or can be harmonized through careful interpretation.
The second part is more practical, analyzing specific cases like freedom of expression vs privacy, or freedom of religion vs. non discrimination. What caught my attention was how similar cases sometimes receive different judgments, showing the subjective nature of interpretation at the ECtHR. Even when the facts are close, the outcomes may vary depending on cultural context, social sensitivity, or the composition of the Court. This made me think about how “balancing” human rights often depends on perspective rather than strict legal logic.
On of the best analyses for me was the discussion of Evans v. the United Kingdom (2007), a case dealing with the bioethical dilemmas of IVF. It clearly shows how the Court struggles to balance moral, ethical, and individual rights in sensitive medical contexts and controversial case.
The book also notes that ECtHR decisions can be influenced by political and social factors. Even similar cases may have different outcomes depending on national context or public opinion. This shows that human rights law is not always completely neutral and that political concerns can affect legal reasoning.
Overall I believe this book successfully highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the Court’s approach. It shows the effort to create harmony but also reveals that achieving true consistency in human rights judgments remains a challenge. Despite some complex parts, I found the book though provoking and useful for understanding the dynamic and sometimes subjective nature of human rights law in Europe.
The first part focuses on theory. It discusses whether human rights truly conflict or can be harmonized through careful interpretation.
The second part is more practical, analyzing specific cases like freedom of expression vs privacy, or freedom of religion vs. non discrimination. What caught my attention was how similar cases sometimes receive different judgments, showing the subjective nature of interpretation at the ECtHR. Even when the facts are close, the outcomes may vary depending on cultural context, social sensitivity, or the composition of the Court. This made me think about how “balancing” human rights often depends on perspective rather than strict legal logic.
On of the best analyses for me was the discussion of Evans v. the United Kingdom (2007), a case dealing with the bioethical dilemmas of IVF. It clearly shows how the Court struggles to balance moral, ethical, and individual rights in sensitive medical contexts and controversial case.
The book also notes that ECtHR decisions can be influenced by political and social factors. Even similar cases may have different outcomes depending on national context or public opinion. This shows that human rights law is not always completely neutral and that political concerns can affect legal reasoning.
Overall I believe this book successfully highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the Court’s approach. It shows the effort to create harmony but also reveals that achieving true consistency in human rights judgments remains a challenge. Despite some complex parts, I found the book though provoking and useful for understanding the dynamic and sometimes subjective nature of human rights law in Europe.
Displaying 1 of 1 review