Patterns of democracy and human rights - An analysis of the relationship between changes in democracy and human rights at the European Court of Human Rights

• Thesis title in Czech: Vzorce demokracie a lidských práv - Analýza vztahu mezi změnami demokracie a lidských práv u Evropského soudu pro lidská práva
• Thesis title in English: Patterns of democracy and human rights - An analysis of the relationship between changes in democracy and human rights at the European Court of Human Rights
• Key words: Human rights, democracy, European Convention on Human Rights
• English key words: Human rights, democracy, European Convention on Human Rights
• Academic year of topic announcement: 2020/2021
• Thesis type: diploma thesis
• Thesis language: angličtina
• Department: Department of International Relations (23-KMV)
• Supervisor: JUDr. Milan Lipovský, Ph.D.
• Author: hidden - assigned by the advisor
• Date of registration: 28.06.2021
• Date of assignment: 28.06.2021
• Date and time of defence: 15.09.2022 09:45
• Venue of defence: Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro
• Date of electronic submission: 02.08.2022
• Date of proceeded defence: 15.09.2022
• Opponents: doc. PhDr. Běla Plechanovová, CSc.

References

List of References
Section I: Case law
1. European Court of Human Rights, Airey v. Ireland, Application no. 6289/73, Judgment of 09 October 1979
2. European Court of Human Rights, Alekseyev v. Russia, Applications no. 4916/07, 25924/08, and 14599/09, Judgement of 21 October 2010
3. European Court of Human Rights, Broniowski v. Poland, Application no. 31443/96, Judgement of 22 June 2004
4. European Court of Human Rights, Burmych and Others v. Ukraine, Applications nos. 46852/13 et al., Judgement of 12 October 2017
5. European Court of Human Rights, Greece v. United Kingdom, Application no. 176/86, Judgement of 2 June 1956
6. European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5493/72, Judgement of 7 December 1976
7. European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v. United Kingdom, Application no. 5493/72, Judgement of 7 December 1976
8. European Court of Human Rights, Marckx v. Belgium, Application no. 6833/74, Judgment of 13 June 1979
9. European Court of Human Rights, Modinos v. Cyprus, Application no. 15070/89, Judgment of 22 April 1993
10. European Court of Human Rights, Price v the United Kingdom, Application no. 33394/96, Judgement of 10 July 2001
11. European Court of Human Rights, United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey Application no. 133/1996/752/951, Judgement of 30 January 1998
12. European Court of Human Rights, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, Application no. 40450/04, Judgement of 15 October 2009
13. European Court of Human Rights, Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, Applications no. 12200/08, 35949/11, and 58282/12, Judgement of 16 July 2019
Section II: Academic sources
1. Adelman, M., Erez, E., & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2003). Policing violence against minority women in multicultural societies:“Community” and the politics of exclusion. Police & Society, 7, 105-133.
2. Alesina, A. F., Easterly, W., Devleeschauwer, A., Kurlat, S. & Wacziarg, R. T. (2002). Fractionalization (June 2002). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=319762 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.319762
3. Amnesty International. (2011). Slovenia urged to provide housing and water for its Roma. Amnesty International. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2011/03/slovenia-urged-provide-housing-and-water-its-roma/
4. Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (Eds.). (2005). Losers' consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. OUP Oxford.
5. Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A., Cortés, C. E., Hahn, C. L., Merryfield, M. M., Moodley, K. A., ... & Parker, W. C. (2005). Democracy and diversity. Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age, Center for Multicultural Education, College of Education University of Washington, Seattle
6. Bollen, K. A., & Jackman, R. W. (1985). Regression diagnostics: An expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. Sociological Methods & Research, 13(4), 510-542.
7. Bratton, M., & Van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge university press.
8. Breuer, M. (2019). ‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: Dogmatic Framework and Conceptual Meaning. In: Breuer, M. (eds) Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 285. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_1
9. Brito, J. A. (2015). Defining country size: A descriptive analysis of small and large States. Retrieved June 2022, from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/66149/1/MPRA_paper_66149.pdf
10. Bueno De Mesquita, B., Downs, G. W., Smith, A., & Cherif, F. M. (2005). Thinking Inside the Box: A Closer Look at Democracy and Human Rights, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 49, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 439–457, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2005.00372.x
11. Caligiuri, A., & Napoletano, N. (2010). The Application of the ECHR in the Domestic Systems. The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online, 20(1), 125-159.
12. Cannoot, P. (2019). Alekseyev and Others v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.). International Legal Materials, 58(6), 1251-1280. doi:10.1017/ilm.2019.53
13. Committee of Ministers. (2022, March 23). Resolution CM/Res(2022)3 on legal and financial consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation in the Council of Europe. Search.coe.int. Retrieved July 2022, from https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680a5ee2f
14. Cook, R. D. (February 1977). “Detection of Influential Observations in Linear Regression”. Technometrics (American Statistical Association)).
15. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M., Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Semetko, H. A., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J. & Teorell, J. (2011), ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach’, Perspectives on Politics 9(2), 247–267. URL: http://people.bu.edu/jgerring/documents/MeasuringDemocracy.pdf
16. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Krusell, J., Medzihorsky, J., Pernes, J., Skaaning, S.-E., Stepanova, N., Teorell, J., Tzelgov, E., Wilson, S. L., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019). The Methodology of “Varieties of Democracy” (V-Dem)1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 143(1), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106319854989
17. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Alizada, N., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Cornell, A., Fish, M. S., Gastaldi, L., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., Grahn, S., Hicken, A., Hindle, G., Ilchenko, N., Kinzelbach, K., Krusell, J., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., Medzihorsky, J., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Pernes, J., Ryd´en, O., von Romer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S., Staton, J., Sundström, A., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y., Wig, T., Wilson, S. & Ziblatt, D. (2022). “VDem [Country–Year/Country–Date] Dataset v12” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds22
18. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Cornell, A., Fish, M. S., Gastaldi, L., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., Grahn, S., Hicken, A., Kinzelbach, K., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., axton, P., Pemstein, D., von Romer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S., Staton, J., Tzelgov, E., Uberti, L., Wang, Y., Wig, T., & Ziblatt, D. (2022). “V-Dem Codebook v12” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
19. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S., & Teorell, J., V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects (2017). V-Dem Working Paper 2017:45, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2951014 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2951014
20. Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E. & Teorell, J. (2015), ‘Measuring High Level Democratic Principles using the V-Dem Data’, V-Dem Working Paper Series 2015(6). International Political Science Review, 37(5), 580-593.URL: https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_working_paper_2015_6.pdf
21. Costa, A.C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001) Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:3, 225-244, DOI: 10.1080/13594320143000654
22. Council of Europe. (2021). The European Convention on Human Rights - A Living Instrument. Retrieved July, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_Instrument_ENG.pdf
23. Council of Europe. (2022). Practical guide on admissibility criteria. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/admissibility_guide_eng.pdf
24. Council of Europe. (2022, May 9). Russia ceases to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights on 16 September 2022. Russia ceases to be a Party to the European Convention on Human Rights on 16 September 2022. Retrieved July 3, 2022, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/russia-ceases-to-be-a-party-to-the-european-convention-of-human-rights-on-16-september-2022
25. D’Andrea, G. (2020). The relation between material and procedural obligations of the State in Janowiec-type cases [Unpublished bachelor thesis]. University of Milan.
26. Dahl, R. A. (1988). Power, Inequality, And Democratic Politics: Essays In Honor Of Robert Dahl. Westview Press.
27. Dahl, R. A., (1970). After the Revolution: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press
28. Davies, L. (1999) Comparing Definitions of Democracy in Education L, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 29:2, 127-140, DOI: 10.1080/0305792990290203
29. Donnelly, J. (1999). Human Rights, Democracy, and Development. Human Rights Quarterly, 21(3), 608–632. http://www.jstor.org/stable/762667
30. Dougherty, G. W., Lindquist, S. A., & Bradbury, M. D. (2006). Evaluating performance in state judicial institutions: Trust and confidence in the Georgia judiciary. State and Local Government Review, 38(3), 176-190.
31. ECHR. (2002) Annual Report 2001. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2001_ENG.pdf
32. ECHR. (2003) Annual Report 2002. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2002_ENG.pdf
33. ECHR. (2004) Annual Report 2003. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf
34. ECHR. (2005) Annual Report 2004. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2004_ENG.pdf
35. ECHR. (2006) Annual Report 2005. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2005_ENG.pdf
36. ECHR. (2007) Annual Report 2006. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2006_ENG.pdf
37. ECHR. (2008) Annual Report 2007. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2007_ENG.pdf
38. ECHR. (2009) Annual Report 2008. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2008_ENG.pdf
39. ECHR. (2010) Annual Report 2009. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2009_ENG.pdf
40. ECHR. (2011) Annual Report 2010. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2010_ENG.pdf
41. ECHR. (2012) Annual Report 2011. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2011_ENG.pdf
42. ECHR. (2013) Annual Report 2012. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2012_ENG.pdf
43. ECHR. (2014). Annual Report 2013. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2013_ENG.pdf
44. ECHR. (2015). Annual Report 2014. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2014_ENG.pdf
45. ECHR. (2016). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2015_ENG.pdf
46. ECHR. (2017). Annual Report 2016. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2016_ENG.pdf
47. ECHR. (2018). Annual Report 2017. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2017_ENG.pdf
48. ECHR. (2019). Annual Report 2018. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2018_ENG.pdf
49. ECHR. (2020). Annual Report 2019. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2019_ENG.pdf
50. ECHR. (2021). Annual Report 2020. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2020_ENG.pdf
51. ECHR. (2022). Annual Report 2021. Retrieved April 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2021_ENG.pdf
52. Emmert, F., & Carney, C. P. (2016). The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights vs. the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights on Fundamental Freedoms-A Comparison. Fordham Int'l LJ, 40, 1047.
53. European Court of Human Rights - Website. (n.d.). Information for applicants. You have an application before the ECHR - Pending application - Procedure. Retrieved July 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants%2Fapplication
54. European Court of Human Rights (1998). Survey – Forty years of activity. (1959-1998) Retrieved June, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_reports_1959_1998_BIL.pdf
55. European Court of Human Rights (2009). The pilot-judgment procedure - european court of human rights. Retrieved May 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pilot_judgment_procedure_ENG.pdf
56. European Court of Human Rights (2012). Research report: The New Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35 § 3(b). Retrieved May 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_admissibility_criterion_ENG.pdf
57. European Court of Human Rights (2021). FS Pilot Judgments. Retrieved May 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Pilot_judgments_ENG.pdf
58. European Court of Human Rights (2022a). Derogation in time of emergency. Retrieved July 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Derogation_ENG.pdf
59. European Court of Human Rights (2022b). Overview 1959-2021. Retrieved May, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592021_ENG.pdf
60. European Court of Human Rights (2022c). The court in Brief . Retrieved June, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Court_in_brief_ENG.pdf
61. European Court of Human Rights (2022d). The ECHR in 50 questions - European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved May, 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
62. European Court of Human Rights(2022e). Your application to the ECHR. Retrieved April 2022, from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
63. European Law Institute. (2012, July). Case overload at the European Court of Human Rights. Case Overload. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/projects-publications/completed-projects-old/case-overload/
64. Evans, T. (2001) If democracy, then human rights?, Third World Quarterly, 22:4, 623-642, DOI: 10.1080/01436590120071812
65. Fearon, J.D. Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country*. Journal of Economic Growth 8, 195–222 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024419522867
66. Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications.
67. Fikfak, V. (2018). Changing State Behaviour: Damages before the European Court of Human Rights, European Journal of International Law, Volume 29, Issue 4, November 2018, Pages 1091–1125, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy064
68. Florczak-Wątor, M. (2017). The role of the European Court of Human Rights in promoting horizontal positive obligations of the state. International and Comparative Law Review, 17(2), 39-53.
69. Foweraker, J., & Krznaric, R. (2000). Measuring liberal democratic performance: An empirical and conceptual critique. Political studies, 48(4), 759-787.
70. Freedomhouse. (2007). Freedom in the World 2007 - The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Freedom_in_the_World_2007_complete_book.pdf
71. Freedomhouse. (2009). Freedom in the World 2009 - The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Freedom_in_the_World_2009_complete_book.pdf
72. Freedomhouse. (2012). Freedom in the World 2012 - The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/FIW_2012_Complete_Book.pdf
73. Freedomhouse. (2013). Freedom in the World 2013 - The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Freedom_in_the_World_2013_complete_book.pdf
74. Freedomhouse. (2014). Freedom in the World 2014 - The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Freedom_in_the_World_2014_complete_book.pdf
75. Frowein, J. A. (2009). The Interaction between National Protection of Human Rights and the ECtHR. In The European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Possible Solutions (pp. 51-54). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
76. Gearty, C. (2000). Democracy and human rights in the european court of human rights: critical appraisal. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 51(3), 381-396.
77. Gerards, J. (2014). Inadmissibility Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Lack of Reasoning, Human Rights Law Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 148–158, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngt044
78. Gerards, J., & Fleuren, J. (2014). Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis.
79. Gerring, J., Hoffman, M., & Zarecki, D. (2018). The Diverse Effects of Diversity on Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 283-314. doi:10.1017/S000712341600003X
80. Gerschewski, J. (2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13–38. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2013.738860
81. Giakoumopoulos, C., & Garcia Ormaechea, A. (2002). The Protection of Minorities in the Activities of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online, 2(1), 471-474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/221161103X00229
82. Gillies, D., & Dias, C. (1993). Human rights, Democracy and Development.
83. Ginsburg, T., & Moustafa, T. (2008). Rule by law: the politics of courts in authoritarian regimes.
84. Glas, L. R. (2019). Burmych v. Ukraine two years later: What about restoral? Retrieved June, 2022, from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/09/17/burmych-v-ukraine-two-years-laterwhat-about-restoral/
85. Griffin, J. (2009). On human rights. OUP Oxford.
86. Hansen, A. (2018). Unstable Democracy: How a History of Coup d'état Sculpted Populism in Modern Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).
87. Hegre, H., & Sambanis, N. (2006). Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50:508–535.
88. Hertogh, M. L. M., & Oosting, M. (1997). Introduction: the ombudsman and the quality of government. In The European Yearbook of Comparative Government and Public Administration (pp. 259-269). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
89. Ishay, M. (2020). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520934917
90. Kassop, N. (2006). The Constitutional Checks and Balances that Neither Check Nor Balance. In: Genovese, M.A., Han, L.C. (eds) The Presidency and the Challenge of Democracy. The Evolving American Presidency Series. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230600744_4
91. Klatt, M. (2011). "Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights." in Heidelberg Journal of International Law, p. 691 ff.
92. Krastev, I. (2011). The paradoxes of new authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 5–16. doi: 10.1353/jod.2011.0027
93. Kunz, R. (2018). A further ‘constitutionalization’ to the detriment of the individual? On the ECtHR’s stricter reading of the principle of subsidiarity regarding the admissibility of cases, Völkerrechtsblog, doi: 10.17176/20180919-182059-0.
94. Kurban, D. (2016). Forsaking individual justice: the implications of the European Court of Human Rights’ pilot judgment procedure for victims of gross and systematic violations. Human Rights Law Review, 16(4), 731-769.
95. Landman, T. (2018). Democracy and human rights: Concepts, measures, and relationships. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 48-59.
96. Lavrysen, L. (2016). Human rights in a positive state. In Rethinking the Relationship between Positive and Negative Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia.
97. Lavrysen, L. (2019, August 29). Zhdanov and others v. Russia: On missed opportunities and an offensive applicant. Zhdanov and others v. Russia: on missed opportunities and an offensive applicant. Retrieved June, 2022, from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/08/29/zhdanov-and-others-v-russia-on-missed-opportunities-and-an-offensive-applicant/
98. Leach-Kemon, K., Chou, D. P., Schneider, M. T., Tardif, A., Dieleman, J. L., Brooks, B. P.C., Hanlon, M. and Murray C. J.L. (2012). The Global Financial Crisis Has Led to A Slowdown In Growth Of Funding To Improve Health In Many Developing Countries, Health Affairs 2012 31:1, 228-235
99. Lewis, M. & Verhoeven, M. (2010). Financial Crises and Social Spending: The Impact of the 2008-2009 Crisis (August 30, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1670341 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1670341
100. Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American political science review, 99(3), 435-452.
101. Lieberman, E. S. (2009). Boundaries of Contagion: How Ethnic Politics have Shaped Government Responses to AIDS. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
102. Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L. & Mechkova, V. (2020), ‘Constraining Governments: New Indices of Vertical, Horizontal, and Diagonal Accountability’, American Political Science Review 114(3), 811820.
103. Madsen, M.R. (2019). Resistance to the European Court of Human Rights: The Institutional and Sociological Consequences of Principled Resistance. In: Breuer, M. (eds) Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 285. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_2
104. McInerney, S., Yourow, H. C. (1996). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence. London, New York, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Kluwer Press, 1996 , European Journal of International Law, Volume 9, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 777–778, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/9.4.777
105. Mill, J. S. (1843). A System of Logic.
106. Morawa, А. (2012). „The European Court of Human Rights Rejection of Petitions where the aplicant Has Not Suffered a Significant Disadvantage “. Jоurnal of transnational legal issues, 1.
107. Nolan, A. (2015), Not Fit for Purpose? Human Rights in Times of Financial and Economic Crisis (September 19, 2015). 2015 (4) European Human Rights Law Review 358-369, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2662881
108. O’Donnell, T. A. (1982). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 4(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/762206
109. OHCHR, (2013). ‘Report on Austerity Measures and Economic and Social Rights’ http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Development/RightsCrisis/E-2013-82_en.pdf [Accessed June 2022].
110. Open Society Justice Initiative. (2012, April). Q & A: Reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved April 2022, from https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/a958f000-d342-49a4-b26a-cd53ee450d57/echr-reform-qanda-4-3-12-2.pdf
111. Özatalay, C. (2020). Purge, Exile, and Resistance: Rethinking the Conflict of the Faculties through the Case of Academics for Peace in Turkey. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on Contemporary Turkey, (30).
112. Palermo, F. (2009). When the Lund Recommendations are Ignored. Effective Participation of National Minorities through Territorial Autonomy, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 16(4), 653-663. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115_016_04-12
113. Pearson Correlation assumptions, 2022. Available at: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/pearson-correlation-assumptions/#:~:text=The%20assumptions%20are%20as%20follows,each%20variable%20should%20be%20continuous. (accessed Mar 13, 2022)
114. Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K. L., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y., Medzihorsky, J., Krusell, J., Miri, F. & von Römer, J. (2022), ‘The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data’, V-Dem Working Paper Series 2022(21). URL: https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/Working_Paper_21.pdf
115. Pew Research Center. (2014). Appendix 1: Religious diversity index - pew research center. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/04/Religious-Diversity-appendix-1.pdf
116. Pew Research Center. (2020, August 27). Global religious diversity. Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/
117. Pillay, A. G., (2012). Chairperson, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Letter to States Parties, 16 May 2012, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/LetterCESCRtoSP16.05.12.pdf
118. Potter, P. B. (1962). Democracy and International Relations. World Affairs, 125(2), 102–106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20670139
119. Radio Televizija Crne Gore. (2013, November 10). „Riječ, slika I neprijatelj" Počinje sjutra. RTCG. Retrieved July 2022, from https://www.rtcg.me/vijesti/drustvo/31209/rijec-slika-i-neprijatelj-pocinje-sjutra.html
120. Registry of the Council of Europe. (2021). Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - protection of property. Retrieved July 14, 2022, from https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_1_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf
121. Reif, L. C. (2000). Building democratic institutions: The role of national human rights institutions in good governance and human rights protection. Harv. Hum. Rts. J., 13, 1.
122. Reilly, B. (2006). Democracy and Diversity: Political Engineering in the Asia-Pacific. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
123. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (2018). Accountability. In Defining Public Administration (pp. 382-395). Routledge.
124. Sambanis, N. (2001). Do Ethnic and Non-Ethnic Civil Wars Have the Same Causes?: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry (Part I). Journal of Conflict Resolution 45:259–282.
125. Sanz Caballero, S. (2014). How Could It Go So Wrong? Reformatio in Peius before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the Case Janowiec and Others v. Russia (or Polish Collective Memory Deceived in Strasbourg). Polish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 33 (2013), pp. 259-278, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2473115 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473115
126. Schmitter, P.C., & Karl, T.L. (1991). What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not. Journal of Democracy 2(3), 75-88. doi:10.1353/jod.1991.0033.
127. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London. George Allen.
128. Shelton, D. (2016). Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 16(2), 303-322.
129. Sigman, R. & Lindberg, S. I. (2015), ‘The Index of Egalitarian Democracy and its Components: V-Dem’s Conceptualization and Measurement’, V-Dem Working Paper Series 2015(22). URL: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2727612
130. Sigman, R. & Lindberg, S. I. (2017), ‘Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa’s Political Regimes’, V-Dem Working Paper Series 2017(56). URL: https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/14/8f/148fbc10-247c-47a1-a4c5-e506aae2dee4/v-dem_working_paper_2017_56.pdf
131. Sigman, R. & Lindberg, S. I. (2018), ‘Democracy for All: Conceptualizing and Measuring Egalitarian Democracy’, Political Science Research and Methods pp. 1–18. URL: https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/core/journals/political-scienceresearch-and-methods/article/democracy-for-all-conceptualizing-and-measuring-egalitariandemocracy/496C5B80EFE82460C35AD4140932481E
132. Sigman, R. & Lindberg, S. I. (2018a), ‘Democracy for All: Conceptualizing and Measuring Egalitarian Democracy’, Political Science Research and Methods pp. 1–18. URL: https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/core/journals/political-scienceresearch-and-methods/article/democracy-for-all-conceptualizing-and-measuring-egalitariandemocracy/496C5B80EFE82460C35AD4140932481E
133. Sigman, R. & Lindberg, S. I. (2018b), Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa’s Political Regimes, in P. Von Doepp & G. Lynch, eds, ‘Handbook of Democratization in Africa’, Routledge, London.
134. Sundström, A., Paxton, P., Wang, Y.-T. & Lindberg, S. I. (2017), ‘Women’s Political Empowerment: A New Global Index, 1900–2012’, World Development 94, 321–335. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17300323
135. Sushko, Y. (2019). Pilot and quasi-pilot judgments of the European Court of human rights: ensuring enhanced protection of human rights. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія юридична, (68), 50-62.
136. Teorell, J. & Lindberg, S. I. (2019), ‘Beyond Democracy-Dictatorship Measures: A New Framework Capturing Executive Bases of Power, 1789-2016’, Perspectives on Politics 17(1)
137. Teorell, J., Coppedge, M., Skaaning, S.-E. & Lindberg, S. I. (2019), ‘Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900-2017’, Studies in Comparative International Development 54(1), 71–95.
138. Transparency International (2011). 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, URL : https://www.transparency.org/en/publications/corruption-perceptions-index-2011
139. Treaty Office . (n.d.). Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 001. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=001
140. UN General Assembly (1948). Universal declaration of human rights, Resolution 217/III, Res. 217/III, adopted on 10th December 1948. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/PDF/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement
141. UN Statistics Division. (n.d.). UNSD — methodology - united nations. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
142. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, custom data acquired via website.
143. United Nations. (2022). Democracy. United Nations. Retrieved June 13, 2022, from https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracy
144. US Department of State. (2012a). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Moldova. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 2022, from https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186381
145. US Department of State. (2012b). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Slovenia. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 2022, from https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186405
146. US Department of State. (2013). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 Georgia. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 2022, from https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=204287
147. US Department of State. (2014a). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013 Montenegro. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 2022, from https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220313
148. US Department of State. (2014b). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013 Serbia. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 2022, from https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220329
149. Vogiatzis, N. (2016). The Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35(3)(b) Echr: A ‘Significant Disadvantage’ to Human Rights Protection? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(1), 185-211. doi:10.1017/S0020589315000573
150. von Savigny, F. K. (1995). National Human Rights Institutions: A Handbook on the Establishment and Strengthening of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Vol. 4). New York: United Nations.
151. von Soest, C. & Grauvogel, J. (2017) Identity, procedures and performance: how authoritarian regimes legitimize their rule, Contemporary Politics, 23:3, 287-305, DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2017.1304319
152. White, R. C., Ovey, C., & Jacobs, F. G. (2010). Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
153. Wildhaber, L. (2007). "The European Court of Human Rights: The Past, The Present, The Future." American University International Law Review 22, no. 4 (2007): 521-538.
154. Wildhaber, L. (2011). “Rethinking the European Court of Human Rights”, in Christoffersen, J., & Madsen, M. R. (Eds.). (2011). The European court of human rights between law and politics. Oxford University Press.
155. Wildhaber, L. (2013). “Criticism and case-overload: Comments on the future of the European Court of Human Rights” in Flogaitis, S., Zwart, T., & Fraser, J. (Eds.). (2013). The European Court of Human Rights and its discontents: turning criticism into strength. Edward Elgar Publishing.
156. Wood, N. (2006, October 7). Roma family's forced move raises rights issue in Slovenia - Europe - International Herald Tribune. The New York Times. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07iht-gypsy.3427824.html
157. Xenos, D. (2011). The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807811
158. Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public administration review, 66(1), 114-126.

Preliminary scope of work

Since the very beginning, the European Court of Human Rights has suffered from a systemic issue: case overload. And despite the continuous reforms of the Convention system, a final solution seems still quite far from being achieved. Despite the focus of researchers and practitioners on this topic, few have investigated the relationship between the internal mechanisms of the states and their consequences on the backlog of the Court. This thesis offers insights over the relationship between the democratic status of a country and the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. It analyses the development of the Court from 1959 until 2021, finding that the reforms put in place by the Court along the years seem to have sorted only a minor effect in reducing the backlog of applications. Second, the panel study between 2000 and 2021 revealed that the democratic status of a country has a significant and negative relationship with the number of applications per capita filed to the Court. Lastly, the qualitative study shows the lack of a clear pattern among the democratic score of a country and the type of violations committed. However, through this last method a new pattern appears. There seems to be a negative relationship between the democratic score of a country and the share of violations found by the Court on the total number of judgements delivered. Future research could benefit from these findings to delineate new methods for reducing the backlog of the Court and reducing the delays in the delivery of the judgements.