Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the crown jewel of the world’s most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECHR has become a victim of its own success. The Court now faces a docket crisis of massive proportions, the consequence of the growing number of states subject to its jurisdiction, its favourable public reputation, its expansive interpretations of individual liberties, a distrust of domestic judiciaries in some countries, and entrenched human rights problems in others. In response to this growing backlog of individual complaints, the Council of Europe has, over the last five years, considered numerous proposals to restructure the European human rights regime and redesign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that these proposals should be understood not as ministerial changes in supranational judicial procedure, nor as resolving a debate over whether the ECHR should strive for individual or constitutional justice, but rather as raising more fundamental questions concerning the Court’s future identity. In particular, the article argues for recognition of ‘ embeddedness ’ in national legal systems as a deep structural principle of the ECHR, a principle that functions as a necessary counterpoint to the subsidiary doctrine that has animated the Convention since its founding. Embeddedness does not substitute ECHR rulings for the decisions of national parliaments or domestic courts. Rather, it requires the Council of Europe and the Court to bolster the mechanisms for governments to remedy human rights violations at home, obviating the need for individuals to seek supranational relief and restoring countries to a position in which the ECHR’s deference to national decision-makers is appropriate

World Music on a U.S. Stage: A Berne/TRIPs and Economic Analysis of the Fairness in Music Licensing Act

This article analyzes the dispute settlement proceedings pending before the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning the Fairness in Music License Act of 1998, a new provision of the US Copyright Act that exempts many bars, restaurants, and retail stores from paying license fees for performing broadcast music in their establishments. In May 1999, the European Community challenged the Act, and its predecessor homestyle exemption, as a violation of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne). The FMLA dispute is the first time in history that US copyright laws will be judged by an international tribunal. The case is an embarrassing one for the United States, which has recently pursued a policy of aggressively encouraging other nations to provide strong legal protections for copyrighted works. Although officials within the Clinton Administration warned legislators that the Fairness in Music Licensing Act might be incompatible with the Berne and TRIPs treaties, Congress enacted the statute over their objections. Thus, in the first year of the new century, Congress may be faced with an unprecedented choice: modify the Copyright Act to satisfy the demands of international trade jurists or face retaliatory trade sanctions by the EC. In addition to analyzing the legal arguments available to the US and the EC under the Berne and TRIPs treaties, this article also seeks to explain why Congress deliberately chose to ignore past US intellectual property policy. Using insights from law and economics and from a study of the history of laws and licensing practices governing secondary uses of broadcast music, the article demonstrates how an increasingly broad free use exemption developed for businesses playing radio and television music. It then draws on these economic and historical insights to develop legislative reform proposals that are both compatible with United States\u27 treaty obligations and that encourage performance rights organizations and associations of copyright users to reach an efficient private agreement to resolve the WTO dispute

Toward a Human Rights Framework for Intellectual Property

This Article, prepared for a Symposium on Intellectual Property and Social Justice held at the University of California at Davis School of Law in March 2006, addresses the growing intersection of human rights law and intellectual property law. Its principal point of departure is a November 2005 General Comment on the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author - a relatively obscure provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Article builds upon the analysis in the General Comment to sketch the tentative outlines of a human rights framework for intellectual property, a framework that offers a distinctive approach for mediating the two fields of law and policy. The Article also analyzes the rapidly changing institutional environment in which states and NGOs are generating new legal rules to govern the interface between human rights and intellectual property. It focuses in particular on three recent treaty-making initiatives in three intergovernmental organizations - UNESCO, WHO, and WIPO. These initiatives include (1) the recently adopted Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, (2) the proposed Medical Research and Development Treaty, and (3) the proposed Access to Knowledge Treaty. Each of these treaty texts draws upon international human rights law in different ways to question existing approaches to intellectual property protection and to revise the mandates of intergovernmental organizations

Treaty Exit and Intra-Branch Conflict at the Interface of International and Domestic Law

This chapter, forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law, considers two important and unresolved issues raised by unilateral withdrawal from or denunciation of treaties. The first issue concerns whether treaty obligations end in both international and domestic law after a state leaves a treaty. Exit often produces the same effects in both legal systems, but some withdrawals bifurcate a treaty’s status, ending its obligations in domestic law but continuing to bind the state internationally, or vice versa. The second issue concerns denunciations initiated by different branches of government. The decision to withdraw from a treaty is usually carried out by the executive acting unilaterally. Less well known, but potentially more fraught from a foreign relations perspective, are instances in which the impetus for exit originates with legislators or judges. Conflicts involving both dimensions of treaty exit stem from a common source – the different domestic and international rules governing how states enter into and leave treaties and the divergent policies that underlie those rules. The chapter develops a typology to categorize these conflicts, drawing upon examples of actual and potential treaty denunciations in several countries as well as actions by the executive, legislature, and judiciary that make such withdrawals more likel

Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes

This article raises the intriguing claim that international law can be overlegalized. Overlegalization occurs where a treaty\u27s substantive rules or its review procedures are too constraining of sovereignty, causing governments to engage in acts of non-compliance or even to denounce the treaty. The concept of legalization and its potential excesses, although unfamiliar to many legal scholars, has begun to be explored by international relations theorists analyzing the effects of legal rules in changing state behavior. This article bridges the gap between international legal scholarship and international relations theory by exploring a recent case study of overlegalization. It seeks to understand why, in the late 1990s, three Commonwealth Caribbean governments denounced human rights treaties and withdrew from the jurisdiction of international tribunals. I refer to these events as the Caribbean backlash against human rights regimes. My study of this backlash has two objectives. The first is to show how overlegalizing human rights can lead even liberal democracies to reconsider their commitment to international institutions that protect those rights. The second objective is to assess three competing international relations theories that seek to explain the conditions under which states comply with their treaty commitments. To provide a more persuasive analysis of these issues, the article includes empirical data analyzing changes in the filing and review of international human rights petitions against Caribbean governments during the 1990s

Exiting Treaties

This Article analyzes the under-explored phenomenon of unilateral exit from international agreements and intergovernmental organizations. Although clauses authorizing denunciation and withdrawal from treaties are pervasive, international legal scholars and international relations theorists have largely ignored them. This Article draws upon new empirical evidence to provide a comprehensive interdisciplinary framework for understanding treaty exit. It examines when and why states abandon their treaty commitments and explains how exit helps to resolve certain theoretical and doctrinal puzzles that have long troubled scholars of international affairs

Flexibility in International Agreements

This chapter is a contribution to the forthcoming edited volume INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: TAKING STOCK (Jeffrey Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., Cambridge University Press 2012). The chapter provides an overview of flexibility mechanisms in international agreements and the role of such mechanisms in promoting or inhibiting international cooperation. Part I reviews the many flexibility devices available to treaty makers. It divides these tools into two broad categories: formal mechanisms (such as reservations, escape clauses, and withdrawal provisions) and informal practices (such as auto-interpretation, nonparticipation, and noncompliance). Part II reviews the international law and international relations scholarship on the design and use of treaty flexibility mechanisms, focusing on studies of exit and escape clauses. Part III highlights several conclusions that emerge from the burgeoning literature on treaty flexibility and suggests avenues for future research

Collective Management of Copyrights and Human Rights: An Uneasy Alliance Revisited

This essay analyzes the “creators’ rights” provisions of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the context of the collective administration of copyright and neighboring rights and the policies and practices of collective management organizations (CMOs). It also addresses other human rights treaties and international court rulings relevant to collective rights management. The essay begins with an overview of the ICESCR Committee’s General Comment on ICESCR Article 15(1)(c), “the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” It then analyzes the key provisions of the General Comment relevant to the collective administration of copyright and neighboring rights. The essay next considers two legal and policy issues with important human rights implications: whether membership in CMOs should be mandatory, and whether CMOs should promote national culture. The essay concludes by evaluating the practical implications of adopting a human rights framework to analyze collective management issues