This article examines cases of conflicting decisions between the ECHR and State Courts. I argue for ‘discordant adjudicative parity.’ According to discordant adjudicative parity, there are compelling non-instrumental reasons for having both international adjudicative institutions and state adjudicative institutions that can make binding, conflicting decisions. Binding decisions by international adjudicative institutions embody the understanding that human rights are duties rather than decisions that are voluntarily undertaken. State Courts facilitate deliberative engagement on the part of citizens as, ultimately, the citizens are in charge of States’ courts. I use this analysis to justify the principle of subsidiarity in European law.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) . Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
- European Convention on Human Rights
- discordant adjudicative parity
- international human rights
- margin of appreciation
- subsidiarity principle