Democratization· 2026Q1
The loyal dissent: democratic backsliding and salience-conditional voting by national judges at the European Court of Human Rights
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
National judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are significantly more likely to dissent in favor of their home state in the Court's high-importance cases compared to routine cases, suggesting a conditional alignment rather than blanket capture.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- National judges at the ECtHR show a stronger tendency to dissent in favor of their home state in high-importance cases.
- This pro-state dissent is significantly weaker and less precise in routine ECtHR cases.
- The findings are consistent across different analytical designs, ruling out case composition as an explanation.
- The pattern suggests a conditional, selective alignment of judges with their home states, not uniform capture.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Can the supranational institutions built to backstop domestic rule of law withstand democratic backsliding? We address this question at the bench of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), where Article 26(4) of the Convention seats a judge elected in respect of each respondent state. Using the full retrievable corpus of ECtHR Chamber and Grand Chamber merits judgments with recorded votes against Council of Europe members (1990–2025), merged with V-Dem’s index of judicial constraints on the executive, we test how the elected national judge’s pro-state dissent tracks the erosion of judicial independence at home. The relationship is salience-conditional, consistent with selection, career, and interpretive channels producing selective rather than blanket state alignment: the association is significantly stronger in the Court’s own high-importance cases than on the routine docket, where the estimate is smaller and imprecisely estimated. A within-case design comparing the national judge with the other judges deciding the same operative item returns the same structure, ruling out case composition. The pattern is inconsistent with uniform blanket capture and isolates a conditional permeability of supranational review, concentrated in the Court-designated high-importance docket.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Democratization, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Law
LawSocial Sciences