Search:

Notify Me of Each Issue:

Editor-In-Chief:

Russell Miller

Advisory Board:

Gregor Bachmann
Nina Boeger
Matthias Casper
Helge Dedek
Hans-Michael Heinig
Florian Hoffmann
Alexandra Kemmerer
Frank Schorkopf

Senior Editors: 

Besty Baker
Jurgen Bast
Gralf-Peter Calliess

Patrycja Dabrowska
Elisa Hoven
Jen Hendry
Malcolm MacLaren
Stefan Magen
Ralf Michaels
Christoph Safferling
Emanuel Towfigh
Floris de Witte

Associate Editors:

Anna Katharina von Oettingen 

Dismantling the Iron-Cage: the Discursive Persistence and Legal Failure of a “Bureaucratic Rational” Construction of the Admissibility Decision-Making of the European Court of Human Rights


By Andrew Tickell
Read this Contribution as a PDF


Suggested Citation: Andrew Tickell, Dismantling the Iron-Cage: the Discursive Persistence and Legal Failure of a “Bureaucratic Rational” Construction of the Admissibility Decision-Making of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 German Law Journal 1786-1812 (2011), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1385

This paper will introduce an account of the dominant discursive construction of the admissibility decision-making of the European Court of Human Rights and argue that this understanding of admissibility decision-making is identifiable with a ‘bureaucratic rational’ model of administrative justice. The plausibility of this dominant discursive construction will then be interrogated by comparing this construction against a detailed legal analysis of two key grounds of admissibility, asking, is the dominant image of admissibility decision-making as formal, technical, rule-governed and bureaucratic supported by the jurisprudence of the Court on these grounds?

This paper will argue that a legal analysis cannot support this ‘bureaucratic rational’ image of admissibility decision-making, disclosing a starkly inconsistent admissibility jurisprudence that relies to a very significant extent on ‘nonreplicable, nonreviewable judgment or intuition’ - an approach totally inimical to the ‘bureaucratic rational’ model of administrative justice. This analysis of the Court’s case law both challenges the assumptions underpinning this dominant image of admissibility decision-making, and generates a series of important empirical questions about how the institution’s “case filtering” functions are presented and understood.



 
German
Law
Journal
Welcomes
Submissions



Call for Papers



Photo by Oksana Suprun
via Wikimedia Commons

click image
to learn more


International
Law
After
Ukraine