This Comment examines European disenfranchisement of prisoners in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to free elections through Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. While many European states continue the longstanding practice of denying wrongdoers the right to vote, at least under certain circumstances, this practice has come under increasing criticism over the last several decades. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has decided several cases addressing this issue, but these decisions have failed to clarify under what circumstances it is permissible for a state to deny prisoners, and former prisoners, the right to vote. The ECtHR’s ambiguous use of the margin of appreciation doctrine ...
In Hirst v UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK must end its blanket ban on conv...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
In 2005 the ECtHR ruled that the UK was in breach of Art. 3 of Protocol 1 (Hirst v. The United Kingd...
This Comment examines European disenfranchisement of prisoners in light of the European Convention o...
This Comment examines European disenfranchisement of prisoners in light of the European Convention o...
This work illustrates, in both theoretical and practical terms, the tension between the standard of ...
Includes bibliographical references.The right to vote is the most important and often even the only ...
In the dispute between Strasbourg and Westminster over prisoners’ voting rights, the arguments of bo...
Comments on the constitutional issues raised by decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hi...
Copyright © 2009 NAPOThis article considers the issue of the prisoner’s right to vote in the light o...
This article looks at voting rights for sentenced prisoners in the UK. A number of approaches are ad...
This paper considers the justifiability of removing the right to vote from those convicted of crimes...
This article explores the case for excluding all prisoners from the electorate, and argues that the ...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
In Hirst v UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK must end its blanket ban on conv...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
In 2005 the ECtHR ruled that the UK was in breach of Art. 3 of Protocol 1 (Hirst v. The United Kingd...
This Comment examines European disenfranchisement of prisoners in light of the European Convention o...
This Comment examines European disenfranchisement of prisoners in light of the European Convention o...
This work illustrates, in both theoretical and practical terms, the tension between the standard of ...
Includes bibliographical references.The right to vote is the most important and often even the only ...
In the dispute between Strasbourg and Westminster over prisoners’ voting rights, the arguments of bo...
Comments on the constitutional issues raised by decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hi...
Copyright © 2009 NAPOThis article considers the issue of the prisoner’s right to vote in the light o...
This article looks at voting rights for sentenced prisoners in the UK. A number of approaches are ad...
This paper considers the justifiability of removing the right to vote from those convicted of crimes...
This article explores the case for excluding all prisoners from the electorate, and argues that the ...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
In Hirst v UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK must end its blanket ban on conv...
The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on draf...
In 2005 the ECtHR ruled that the UK was in breach of Art. 3 of Protocol 1 (Hirst v. The United Kingd...