Tuesday, 31 May 2011

The Economist's View on the Court

Charlemagne, the European columnist of the Economist wrote an Op-Ed earlier this month on Europe's two highest Courts: Supreme muddle - Europe’s highest courts can be annoying, but they do more good than harm. The gist of the article is that even though the two, the ECJ and the ECtHR, might at times be annoying to politicans, on the balance it is good that we have them (sic!). The article is neither very positive, nor very negative. As Charlemagne says "Judicial nonsense should be restrained wherever possible but may be a price worth paying for the protection of Europe’s prosperity and freedom." Note the "may" in that latter sentence: not really a wholehearted statement of support!


Rhodri C. Williams said...

The Economist is a wonderful source of news and analysis but often seem to treat human rights issues with precisely the type of cavalier disdain that human rights activists are accused of demonstrating regarding economic issues. I've found myself blogging somewhat defensively on this point as well, most recently with regard to the magazine's take on group rights: http://terra0nullius.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/with-me-or-against-us-the-economist-mourns-the-passing-of-the-rugged-individual-right/

Anonymous said...

Hi Antoine! I'm quietly following your consistently impressive blog.

Charlemagne's assumption that a fair part of the ECHR's jurisprudence is "judicial nonsense" needs a bit more substantiation than just naming three cases, I'd say.

That aside, I was wondering what you thought of the Chodorkovsky judgment. Looking forward, and hope all is well, Emiel