User contributions for Srt2
A user with 12 edits. Account created on 15 October 2020.
14 December 2020
- 08:3008:30, 14 December 2020 diff hist +341 European Court of Human Rights The admissibility rate before the ECHR is extremely low. This has been criticized in many academic contributions. Tag: Visual edit
24 November 2020
- 07:5207:52, 24 November 2020 diff hist +177 European Court of Human Rights In the introdutory section I tried to give a some more balanced picture. In the section "effectiveness", last sentence, there was a mistake. In fact, the authors cited do no ask for referring "access to the Court" to the Committee of Minister but "denical of access". Tag: Visual edit
20 October 2020
19 October 2020
- 18:3718:37, 19 October 2020 diff hist +1,134 Talk:European Court of Human Rights →Effectiveness of the ECHR
- 18:1918:19, 19 October 2020 diff hist +448 User talk:Buidhe →Buidhe
- 18:1018:10, 19 October 2020 diff hist +76 m European Court of Human Rights Pages added. Tag: Visual edit
- 08:0008:00, 19 October 2020 diff hist +2,093 European Court of Human Rights I further added information on effectiveness. We cannot state at the beginning that the ECHR is most effective human rights court (on which basis, by the way and we have to be very careful not to engage in "European human rights imperialism") and afterwards silently have to admit that access to this Court is rather poor. Tag: Visual edit
- 06:3306:33, 19 October 2020 diff hist +961 European Court of Human Rights I added a further footnote corroborating the statements in the previous note. Tag: Visual edit
18 October 2020
- 18:0018:00, 18 October 2020 diff hist +1,540 European Court of Human Rights It is a one-sided perspective to mention only praise for the Court. In academic literature, much criticism has been voiced about the operation in practice of this Court. These voice and this literature have to be mentioned. Tot state that the ECHR is the "most effective human Rights Court" does make little sense. Measured against which criteria? On the basis of the subjective sensation of the author? Even if over 95% of the complaints are declared inadmissible? Wikipedia has to remain objective. Tag: Visual edit
- 17:2017:20, 18 October 2020 diff hist −382 European Court of Human Rights Undid revision 984154341 by Buidhe (talk) This perspective does not make sense. This is not a beauty contest between International Human Rights Courts. The allegation - proven by statistics - is that the ECHR does not work well. (Less than 5% of the complaints are declared admissible). It does not make sense to state that the ECHR is the best-working Court (among all the apparently dysfunctional Courts)o stat Tags: Undo Reverted references removed
- 06:4106:41, 18 October 2020 diff hist +1,989 European Court of Human Rights Undid revision 984049890 by Buidhe (talk) No serious International Law manual lavishes such praise on the ECHR. Second: there are strong voices in literature criticizes the Convention system for not granting sufficient access. If more than 95% of the complaints are declared as inadmissible than something in this system is flawed. And I wonderwhy Wikipedia does not allow critical voices. Tag: Undo
17 October 2020
- 20:5720:57, 17 October 2020 diff hist +1,989 European Court of Human Rights →Effectiveness: The previous formulation full of praise for the effectivenes of the ECHR does not appear to be justified. It is contradicted by the statistics (evidence a very low admissability rate) and by strong criticism in literature in particular as to access to the Court. A broader discussion is necessary that should address these evident flaws of the Convention system. Tags: Reverted Visual edit
