Tensions between constitutional and international law

DEBATE

In recent years, tensions have increased between domestic constitutional principles and international legal norms: the European Convention on Human Rights and its implementation are heavily criticized e.g. in the United Kingdom or Switzerland. And the Italian Constitutional Court recently declared that Italy’s measures to implement a judgment of the International Court of Justice were unconstitutional. Where are these phenomena rooted and how can they be framed and assessed? A joint online symposium by Verfassungsblog, Völkerrechtsblog and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

30 Januar 2015

Ilya Levin, Michael Schwarz

At a crossroads: Russia and the ECHR in the aftermath of Markin

As part of Verfassungsblog’s topical focus on the prevailing tensions between international and national constitutional law, we go east and take a look at Russia and its unsteady relationship with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) – particularly the lately arisen tensions between the Russian Constitutional Court (CCR) and Strasbourg in the wake of the ECtHR’s decision in the Markin case. First, and in a more general manner, we briefly review the theories conceptualizing the relationship between domestic and international law, which traditionally go by the names of monism and dualism. In doing so, we do not miss the point that, as national constitutional practice in a variety of member states of the ECHR shows, conceptual clarity in terms of commitment to one or the other grand theory is often blurred, if not contradicted (I.). Clearly, Russia is no exception (II.). The Markin case marks a turning point in the relationship between the CCR and the ECtHR as Strasbourg, for the first time, overruled a decision of the CCR, which spurred a heated constitutional debate. The repercussions are yet to be seen (III.).