Erosion of democracy and adequacy of the Strasbourg court's response

In this article, the author examines the metamorphoses of political regimes of Council of Europe states, as well as the erosion of democracy in some of them.Political regimes are classified into liberal democracy, militant democracy, patronal democracy and patronal autocracy.The last three types of political regimes are considered in the context of Article 17 of the first part, Article 18 and Article 17 of the second part of ECHR.The response of Strasbourg court to the challenges of militant democracy and partronal democracy are adequate.In regards of challenges of patronal autocracy, the Strasbourg court's response is not relevant.The author comes to a conclusion that the court has not fully uncovered the potential of the second part of Article 17.Instead, the court uses Article 18 of the convention, which is an effective response to the challenges of patronal democracy, but not patronal autocracy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijhrcs.2025.142872
Primary Topic
European and International Law Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Erosion of democracy and adequacy of the Strasbourg court's response

Armen Harutyunyan
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies
European and International Law Studies
article

Erosion of democracy and adequacy of the Strasbourg court's response

Armen Harutyunyan
article en

Abstract

In this article, the author examines the metamorphoses of political regimes of Council of Europe states, as well as the erosion of democracy in some of them.Political regimes are classified into liberal democracy, militant democracy, patronal democracy and patronal autocracy.The last three types of political regimes are considered in the context of Article 17 of the first part, Article 18 and Article 17 of the second part of ECHR.The response of Strasbourg court to the challenges of militant democracy and partronal democracy are adequate.In regards of challenges of patronal autocracy, the Strasbourg court's response is not relevant.The author comes to a conclusion that the court has not fully uncovered the potential of the second part of Article 17.Instead, the court uses Article 18 of the convention, which is an effective response to the challenges of patronal democracy, but not patronal autocracy.

International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional StudiesVol. 12(1)
Arab Center for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Education (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
European and International Law Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.