¹ Keller, H and Stone Sweet, A, ‘Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems’ in id (eds), A Europe of Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) 677, 677;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gerards, J and Fleuren, J, ‘Introduction’ in id (eds), Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case-Law: A Comparative Analysis (Intersentia, Cambridge 2014) 1, 1 and 27.Google Scholar

² Loizidou v Turkey, Preliminary Objections, App No 15318/89 (23 March 1995) para 75; see also e.g. Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom, Judgment, App No 55721/07 (7 July 2011) para 141; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc v Switzerland, Judgment, App No 5809/08 (21 June 2016) para 145; and Aliyev v Azerbaijan, Judgment, App Nos 68762/14 and 71200/14 (20 September 2018) para 225.

³ Brighton Declaration, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights (19–20 April 2012) <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf>; Copenhagen Declaration on the Reform of the European Convention on Human Rights System (13 April 2018) <http://rm.coe.int/copenhagen-declaration/16807b915c>.

⁴ R Ryssdal, ‘On the Road to a European Constitutional Court’ (1991) 2 Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law 3.

⁵ Ibid 20.

⁶ Alkema, EA, ‘The European Convention as a Constitution and Its Court as a Constitutional Court’ in Mahoney, P, Matscher, F, Petzold, H and Wildhaber, L (eds), Protection des Droits de l’Homme: La Perspective Européenne : Mélanges à la Mémoire de Rolv Ryssdal (Heymann, Köln, 2000) 41.Google Scholar

⁷ L Wildhaber, ‘A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2002) 23 Human Rights Law Journal 161.

⁸ Ibid 161.

⁹ Ibid 163.

¹⁰ Ibid 165.

¹¹ Greer, S, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Ibid 317.

¹³ Sadurski, W, Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid 44.

¹⁵ Krisch, N, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid 111.

¹⁷ Stone Sweet, A, ‘The Structure of Constitutional Pluralism: Review of Nico Krisch, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Post-National Law’ (2013) 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law 491, 500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Avbelj, M and Komárek, J, ‘Introduction’ in id (eds), Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012) 1, 2;Google Scholar one of the best-known proponents of constitutional pluralism is Neil Walker, see e.g. N Walker, ‘The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 317; a similar theory, also from the EU law context, is the ‘multi-level constitutionalism’ by Ingolf Pernice, see e.g. I Pernice, ‘Multilevel Constitutionalism in the European Union’ (2002) 25 European Law Review 511.

¹⁹ N Walker, ‘Constitutionalism and Pluralism in Global Context’ in Avbelj and Komárek (n 18) 17.

²⁰ Shaffer, G, ‘A Transnational Take on Krisch’s Pluralist Postnational Law’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 565, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Greer, S and Wildhaber, L, ‘Revisiting the Debate About “Constitutionalising” the European Court of Human Rights’ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 655.Google Scholar

²² Ibid 684.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ M Loughlin, ‘Constitutional Pluralism: An Oxymoron?’ (2014) 3 Global Constitutionalism 9, 19 and 30; JHH Weiler prefers instead to use the term ‘constitutional tolerance’; see Weiler, JHH, ‘Prologue: Global and Pluralist Constitutionalism – Some Doubts’ in de Búrca, G and Weiler, JHH (eds), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 8, 12.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ulfstein, G ‘A Transnational Separation of Powers?’ in Saul, M, Føllesdal, A and Ulfstein, G (eds), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017) 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ See Fauchald, OK and Nollkaemper, A (eds), The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012) andGoogle Scholar Nollkaemper, A, ‘Conversations Among Courts’ in Alter, KJ, Shany, Y and Romano, CPR (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 523;Google Scholar for a critical assessment of the idea of judicial dialogue, see K Traisbach, ‘A Transnational Judicial Public Sphere as an Idea and Ideology: Critical Reflections on Judicial Dialogue and its Legitimizing Potential’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 186–207 (in this issue); F Kratochwil, ‘Law as an Argumentative Practice: On the Pitfalls of Confirmatory Research, False Necessities, and (Kantian) Stupidity – Comments on Knut Traisbach’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 208–220 (in this issue).

²⁷ Stone Sweet, A, ‘A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Constitutional Pluralism and Rights Adjudication in Europe’ (2012) 1 Global Constitutionalism 53, 53;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kumm, M, ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State’ in Dunoff, JL and Trachtman, JP (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) 258, 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Kumm, M, Lang, AF, Tully, J and Wiener, A, ‘How Large Is the World of Global Constitutionalism?’ (2014) 3 Global Constitutionalism 1, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ See the ‘constitutionalist’ standards listed in Daintith, T, ‘Constitutionalism’ in Cane, P and Conaghan, J (eds), The New Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) 209–10.Google Scholar Dunoff and Trachtman argue that international constitutional norms may serve three functions: enabling or restraining the formation of international law or filling gaps in domestic constitutional law; see JL Dunoff and JP Trachtmann, ‘A Functional Approach to International Constitutionalization’ in Dunoff and Trachtmann (n 27) 3, 10; see also in this issue A Follesdal, ‘International Human Rights Courts and the (International) Rule of Law: Part of the Solution, Part of the Problem, or Both?’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 118–138 (in this issue); G Palombella, ‘Non-Arbitrariness, Rule of Law and the “Margin of Appreciation”: Comments on Andreas Follesdal’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 139–150 (in this issue).

³⁰ See Føllesdal, A, ‘Survey Article: Subsidiarity’ (1998) 6 The Journal of Political Philosophy 190–218;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Carozza, PG, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 38–79;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kumm, M, ‘The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 907, 920–4;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Feichtner, I, ‘Subsidiarity’ in Wolfrum, R et al. (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law <http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1477>;;>Google Scholar Føllesdal, A, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law’ (2013) 2 Global Constitutionalism 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Halberstam, D, ‘Federalism: Theory, Policy, Law’ in Rosenfeld, M and Sajó, A (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) 577, 585;Google Scholar Breyer, SG, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View (Alfred A Knopf, New York, NY, 2010) 121.Google Scholar

³² Kumm (n 27) 291–6; see also Gruszczynski, L and Werner, WG, ‘Introduction’ in id (eds), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 1;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shany, Y, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’ (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Brighton Declaration (n 3); Protocol No 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No 213, opened for signature on 24 June 2013, not yet entered into force (31 July 2019).

³⁴ The traditional reference is Handyside v United Kingdom¸ Judgment, App No 5493/72 (7 December 1976) para 48.

³⁵ See (n 2).

³⁶ Al-Dulimi (n 2) para 145.

³⁷ See on European consensus: Dzehtsiarou, K, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ See, for example, Rohlena v the Czech Republic, Judgment, App No 59552/08 (27 January 2015) para 51; see also Harris, DJ, Warbrick, C and O’Boyle, M, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 17–18.Google Scholar

³⁹ Animal Defenders International v the United Kingdom, Judgment, App No 48876/08 (22 April 2013) para 116.

⁴⁰ Mahoney, P, ‘The Relationship between the Strasbourg Court and the National Courts’ (2014) 130 Law Quarterly Review 568, 571.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Von Hannover v Germany (No 2), Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 40660/08 and 60641/08 (7 February 2012) para 107.

⁴² See Merabishvili v Georgia, Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 72508/13 (28 November 2017), Navalnyye v Russia (No 2), Judgment, App No 43734/14 (9 April 2019) and Proceedings under Article 46 section 4 in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan, Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 15172/13 (29 May 2019).

⁴³ B Çalı, ‘Coping with Crisis: Whither the Variable Geometry in the Jurisprudence the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2018) 35 Wisconsin International Law Journal 237, 269–70.

⁴⁴ M Andenas and E Bjorge, ‘National Implementation of ECHR Rights’ in A Føllesdal, B Peters and G Ulfstein (eds), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013) 181, 261.

⁴⁵ Al-Khawaja and Tahery v the United Kingdom, Judgment, App No 26766/05 and 22228/06 (15 December 2011).

⁴⁶ Von Hannover v Germany (No 1), Judgment, App No 59320/00 (24 June 2004); von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (n 41).

⁴⁷ A Voßkuhle, ‘Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund’ (2010) 6 European Constitutional Law Review 175, 197; Mahoney (n 40) 571; Bjorge, E, ‘Bottom-up Shaping of Rights: How the Scope of Human Rights at the National Level Impacts upon Convention Rights’ in Brems, E and Gerards, J (eds), Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013) 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ See J Waldron, ‘The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review’ (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1346; R Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007); RH Fallon Jr, ‘The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review’ (2008) 121 Harvard Law Review 1693; M Tushnet, ‘How Different are Waldron’s and Fallon’s Core Cases For and Against Judicial Review?’ (2010) 30 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 49; see also in this issue J Waldron, ‘The Rule of Law and the Role of Courts’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 91–105 (in this issue); BZ Tamanaha, ‘Always Imperfectly Achieved Rule of Law: Comments on Jeremy Waldron’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 106–117 (in this issue).

⁴⁹ von Bogdandy, A and Venzke, I, In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid 156–207.

⁵¹ Kumm (n 27) 273.

⁵² Føllesdal, A, ‘Why the European Court of Human Rights Might Be Democratically Legitimate – A Modest Defense’ (2009) 27 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 260.Google Scholar

⁵³ Bellamy, R, ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Conventions: Political Constitutionalism and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2014) 25 European Journal of International Law 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Harris, Warbrick and O’Boyle (n 38) 29.

⁵⁵ However, we also have national courts undertaking a ‘weak’ constitutional review, such as the Canadian Supreme Court, see Chen, AH and Maduro, MP, ‘The Judiciary and Constitutional Review’ in Tushnet, MV, Fleiner, T and Saunders, C (eds), Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law (Routledge, London, 2013) 97, 103.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No 005, opened for signature on 4 November 1950 and entered into force on 3 September 1953 (emphasis added).

⁵⁷ Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2), Judgment, App No 74025/01 (6 October 2005) para 79.

⁵⁸ Animal Defenders International v the United Kingdom (n 39) para 116.

⁵⁹ S.A.S. v France, Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 43835/11 (1 July 2014) para 129.

⁶⁰ İzzettin Doğan and others v Turkey, Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 62649/10 (26 April 2016) para 112; see also Osmanoǧlu and Kocabaş v Switzerland (2017), Judgment, App No 29086/12 (10 January 2017) para 87.

⁶¹ See, generally, Saul, M, ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments’ (2015) 15 Human Rights Law Review 745;Google Scholar see also the contributions in Saul, Føllesdal and Ulfstein (n 25) and A Donald and P Leach, Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016).

⁶² See Hatton and others v the United Kingdom, Judgment, App No 36022/97 (8 July 2003) para 100 and Giacomelli v Italy Judgment, App No 59909/00 (2 November 2006) para 80.

⁶³ R Spano, ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights – Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 18 Human Rights Law Review 1, 17.

⁶⁴ See generally on the relationship between international and national courts Nollkaemper (n 26).

⁶⁵ D Spielmann, ‘Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Systems of Europe’ in Rosenfeld and Sajó (n 31) 1232.

⁶⁶ Protocol No 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No 214, opened for signature on 2 October 2013 and entered into force on 1 August 2018. The first advisory opinion was rendered by the Court on the basis of a request by the French Court of Cassation in 2019: Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, Advisory Opinion (Grand Chamber), Request No P16-2018-001 (10 April 2019).

⁶⁷ D Spielmann, ‘Solemn Hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on the Occasion of the Opening of the Judicial Year of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Dialogue between Judges, Proceedings of the Seminar 2014 ‘Implementation of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: A Shared Judicial Responsibility?’ (European Court of Human Rights/Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2014) <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2014_ENG.pdf>.

⁶⁸ See Mahoney (n 40) 584.

⁶⁹ See Bjorge (n 47).

⁷⁰ See Spano, R, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights? Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity’ (2014) 14 Human Rights Law Review 487.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Voßkuhle (n 47) 198.

⁷² Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia, Judgment, App Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05 (4 July 2013); see also Konstantin Markin v Russia, Judgment (Grand Chamber), App No 30078/06 (22 March 2012).

⁷³ Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia, Judgment, App No 14902/04 (31 July 2014); see Mälksoo, L, ‘Introduction: Russia, Strasbourg, and the Paradox of a Human Rights Backlash’ in Mälksoo, L and Benedek, W (eds), Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018) 3, 9.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ V Starzhenetskiy, ‘Property Rights in Russia: Reconsidering the Socialist Legal Tradition’ in Mälksoo and Benedek (n 73) 295, 324–25.