Inter-American Court of Human Rights ; International human rights norms; European Court of Human Rights ; Comparative case study ; Interdisciplinary IR/IL research program; International courts; Judicial behaviour
Yildiz Ezgi, Garbin Ramanzini Isabela (2020), Revamping to Remain Relevant: How Do the European and the Inter-American Human Rights Systems Adapt to Challenges?, in Journal of Human Rights Practice
, 12(3), 768-780.
Yildiz Ezgi (2020), A Court with Many Faces: Judicial Characters and Modes of Norm Development in the European Court of Human Rights, in European Journal of International Law
, 31(1), 73-99.
Yildiz Ezgi (2020), Enduring Practices in Changing Circumstances: A Comparison of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Temple International and Comparative Law Journal
, 34(2), 309-338.
Yildiz Ezgi (2019), Extraterritoriality Reconsidered: Functional Boundaries as Repositories of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction, in Margolies Daniel S. et al. (ed.), Routledge, Oxon; New York , 215-227.
This project aims to shed light on the way international courts operate and develop norms from a micro perspective. It starts with the question of whether international courts have preferences when developing norms, and if so, how these preferences are formulated and legally articulated. To address this question, the research investigates how international courts strategically employ doctrines of interpretation to convey their institutional identities and preferences in legal terms by looking at the practices of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. More specifically, it traces how these two regional human rights courts employ various doctrines of interpretation - ranging from taking ‘the intention of the parties’ as basis (originalism), the semantics of the text (textualism) to ‘evolutive interpretation’ - when developing a wide-range of norms safeguarded under their constitutive treaties. Based on this comparative analysis, the project proposes and tests hypotheses exploring the link between courts’ identities, preferences, and the adoption of doctrines of interpretation. The aim is to show that legal practice is not an apolitical and automatic exercise as it is often viewed in International Law (IL) literature. In fact, the research advances that the courts formulate their preferences with respect to how a norm should develop, and then decide on the rules of interpretation to express these preferences in legal terms. This way, the norms develop incrementally (and often haphazardly) each time a case invoking this particular norm is reviewed, and not linearly as International Relations (IR) literature portrays. This research, therefore, provides an alternative way of looking at the practices of international courts and the nature of norm development enacted by legal practice. Its innovative findings contribute to both the theoretical and empirical foundations of IL and IR literatures, and interdisciplinary IR/IL research program.