¹ On monism and dualism see Miller, JP and Wildhaber, L, Praxis des Völkerrechts (3rd edn, Stämpfli Bern, 2001) 153–208.Google Scholar On the application of the Convention in Member States see Blackburn, R and Polakiewicz, J (eds), Fundamental Rights in Europe (OUP, Oxford, 2001).Google Scholar

² Møse, E, ‘Norway’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 625–55.Google Scholar

³ cf Meriggiola, E, ‘Italy’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 475–50Google Scholar; a recent illustration of the difficulties encountered in Italy can be found in Scordino v Italy (No 1) [GC], Judgment of 29 Mar 2006, [2006] ECHRGoogle Scholar; for illustrations concerning Germany see Caroline von Hannover v Germany (3d Section), Judgment of 24 June 2004Google Scholar; Görgülü v Germany (3d Section), Judgment of 26 Feb 2004; German Federal Constitutional Court (2d Senate), ‘Görgülü-Beschluss’ of 14 Oct 2004, [2004] EuGRZ 741–8Google Scholar; Bergmann, J, ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Europa’ [2004] EuGRZ 620–7Google Scholar; Cremer, H-J, ‘Zur Bindungswirkung von EGMR-Urteilen’ [2004] EuGRZ 683–700Google Scholar; Papier, H-J, ‘Koordination des Grundrechtsschutzes in Europa—die Sicht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts’ (2005) 124 Revue de droit Suisse 113–27Google Scholar; Scheyli, M, ‘Konstitutioneller Anspruch des EGMR des Umgang mit nationalen Argumenten’ [2004] EuGRZ 628–34Google Scholar; Luzius, Wildhaber, ‘Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz aus der Sicht des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte’ [2005] EuGRZ 689–92Google Scholar; id ‘Bemerkungen zum Vortrag von BVerfG-Präsident Papier, HJ.’ [2005] EuGRZ 743–4.Google Scholar

⁴ Zwaak, LF, ‘The Netherlands’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 595–624Google Scholar; H Tretter, ‘Austria’ in ibid 103–65.

⁵ This would be similar to the ‘later in time’ doctrine in American law, which demonstrates a dualist rather than a monist approach. See Restatement of the Law Third, American Law Institute, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (St Paul, , Minn, 1987) § 115 63–9.Google Scholar

⁶ Schokkenbroek, J and Ziemele, I, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Central and Eastern European Member States of the Council of Europe’ (2000) 34 Netherlands Legal Journal 1914–20.Google Scholar

⁷ A recent example for such a harmonization without express reliance on the Convention can be found in the judgment of the Turkish Court of Cassation of 18 Apr 2006, which quashed a decision of a lower instance and found that a caricature of Prime Minister RT Erdogan, portraying him as a cat, did not amount to defamation, because it was covered by freedom of expression.

⁸ cf Buergenthal, T, ‘Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good or Bad?’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 267–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delas, O, Coˇté, R, Crépeau, F, and Leuprecht, P (eds), Les juridictions Internationales: Complémentarité ou concurrence? (Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2005).Google Scholar

⁹ Caflisch, L and Cançado-Trindade, AA, ‘Les conventions américaine et européenne des droits de l'homme et le droit international général’ (2004) 108 Revue générate de droit international public 5–62Google Scholar; Ziemele, I, ‘Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and Integrity of International Law’ in Vinaixa, R Huesa and Wellens, K (eds), L'influence des sources sur I'unité et la fragmentation du droit international (Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2006) 187–210.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Al-Adsani v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 21 11 2001, § 55, ECHR 2001–XI.Google Scholar

¹¹ Loizidou v Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], Judgment of 23 03 1995, §§ 75, 93, A/310Google Scholar; Bankovic v Belgium et al [GC], Decision of 12 12 2001, § 80, ECHR 2001–XII.Google Scholar

¹² Ireland v United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 01 1978, § 239, A/25; Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11) §70.Google Scholar

¹³ Al-Adsani (n 10) § 55.

¹⁴ Loizidou v Turkey (merits) [GC], Judgment of 18 12 1996, § 44, ECHR 1996–VI.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Al-Adsani n. 10). For a more elaborate discussion see text at n 29.

¹⁶ Bankovic (n 12), §§ 55 et seq and see text at n 24.

¹⁷ Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 12) § 72.

¹⁸ Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey [GC], Judgment of 4 02 2005, § 101Google Scholar; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen, and Pedersen, Judgment of 7 12 1976, § 53, A/23Google Scholar; Soering, Judgment of 7 07 1989, §87, A/161.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11), §§ 96–8 and see text at n 39.

²⁰ See Wildhaber, L, ‘Sovereignty and international law’ in Macdonald, RStJ and Johnston, DM (eds), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/Lancaster, 1983) 19–49.Google Scholar

²¹ Pierre-Henri, Teitgen, ‘Consultative Assembly, 19 Aug 1949 in Collected edition of the ‘travaux préparatories’ of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol I (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1975) 49.Google Scholar

²² Lawrence v Texas, Judgment of 26 June 2003, (2003) 24 HRLJ 371–84.Google ScholarSee also Ginsburg, R Bader, ‘Gebührender Respekt vor den Meinungen der Menschheit’ [2004] EuGRZ 341–6.Google Scholar

²³ Tyrer, , Judgment of 25 04 1978, § 31, A/26Google Scholar; Klass, , Judgment of 6 09 1978, § 34, A/28; Soering (n 19), §§ 87, 102Google Scholar; Matthews v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 18 02 1999, § 39, ECHR 1999–1Google Scholar; Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 11 07 2002, § 75, ECHR 2002–VI; Mamatkulov (n 18) §§ 101, 121.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bankovic v Belgium et al [GC], Decision of 12 12 2001, ECHR 2001–XII.Google Scholar

²⁵ §§ 55–8.

²⁶ §§ 59–61.

²⁷ Blečić v Croatia [GC], Judgment of 8 03 2006.Google Scholar

²⁸ §§45–8, 70–1, 79–81, 90–1.

²⁹ Al-Adsani v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 21 11 2001, ECHR 2001–XI.Google Scholar

³⁰ §§ 37–41.

³¹ § 54.

³² §§ 60–3.

³³ Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey [GC], Judgment of 4 02 2005.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cruz Varas v Sweden, Judgment of 20 03 1991, A/201.Google Scholar

³⁵ Mamatkulov (n 33) §§ 40–53, 109–10, 112–18, 124.

³⁶ § 124.

³⁷ § 128.

³⁸ Belilos, , Judgment of 29 04 1988, A/132.Google Scholar

³⁹ Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11).

⁴⁰ §§ 75, 77, and 89.

⁴¹ §§ 93–8.

⁴² Loizidou (merits) (n 14) §§ 43–5.

⁴³ CCPR/C/2/Revl/Add6 (11 11 1994).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ cf Wildhaber, L, ‘Rund um Belilos’, in Kleinstaat und Menschenrechte, Festgabe für Gerard Batliner (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel/Frankfurt aM, 1993) 323–9Google Scholar; Ziemele, Ineta (ed), Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim §irketi v Ireland [GC], Judgment of 30 06 2005.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ §§ 73–6.

⁴⁷ §§ 155–6, 165.