While research on the right to freedom of thought (FOT), as such, is already scarce, this chapter targets the European regional human rights framework in particular, attempting to fill the existing gap in research and literature. It aims to offer an exploratory analysis of the right to FOT through the prism of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and related jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Specifically, this chapter inquires whether the right to FOT can indeed be considered a right with independent value in the context of the ECHR, or whether it must rather be understood as an ancillary right, subordinate to and dependent on related ECHR rights (in a similar fashion as Article 14). In exploring this, a distinction must be drawn between the theoretical set-up of FOT in the ECHR and the drafters’ intention compared to how the ECtHR’s interpretation and application shaped the right in practice. By focusing on the question of its nature within the ECHR this chapter aims to stimulate further engagement with this under-researched right.

This chapter analyses the indirect judicial application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) in the United Kingdom, a dualist legal system where the Convention has not been fully incorporated through legislation. Although the courts have somewhat engaged with the Convention through the traditional methods (statutory interpretation and the development of the common law), the Convention has been given effect overwhelmingly in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA), and implicitly of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1951 (the ECHR). The joint application of the Convention with the HRA–ECHR tandem has been both a facilitating and an inhibiting factor in the judicial effect of the former. Like courts in other jurisdictions, UK courts have also applied the Convention in sui generis ways, diversifying thus the opportunities for its usage. The overlap between the Convention and other legal standards makes the assessment of its impact difficult, but it is clear that the application of the Convention is associated with a more child-sensitive judicial reasoning.

This chapter examines how the Council of Europe sought to promote the rule of law in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev’s ambition to construct a “common European home,” to be pursued in concert with European states and international organizations, was advanced by Russian president Boris Yeltsin and, at least initially, by his successor as president, Vladimir Putin. But after roughly a decade of concrete reforms, that effort foundered, reversed, and then collapsed. Russia descended again into authoritarianism and, shortly after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe. Thus, this story now has a beginning, a middle, and an end. This chapter explores that story and how the dynamics of Russia’s pursuit and rocky course of membership in the Council of Europe affected both the Russian state and the international organization that sought to admit it to membership.

This chapter offers an elaborate analysis of the position of same-sex couples and rainbow families under the ECHR and EU law. Addressing issues such as marriage and partnerships, parenthood and parental responsibility, but also social benefits, family reunification and the legal recognition of family ties established abroad, the chapter takes the view that the recognition and protection of family relationships can follow multiple paths and that the ECtHR case law and EU law are mutually reinforcing for the benefit of the rights of same-sex couples and their children. The chapter also acknowledges that subsidiarity considerations lead European bodies to favour a compromise approach, refraining from forcing states to abandon their traditional conception of family law’s fundamental institutions: marriage and parenthood. The chapter, nevertheless, suggests that, at some point in the future, the increased visibility and legitimacy of same-sex couples and rainbow families should ultimately lead to imposing a European and inclusive understanding of these institutions.

The application of AI in judicial decision-making has the potential for both courts and people seeking justice in consumer law contexts. This is especially true for AI assistant systems that help judges by pre-evaluating individual cases. Currently, the application of a human-out-of-the-loop robojudge is unrealistic in Europe as its use would not only be in conflict of fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR

The concluding chapter starts by very briefly summarizing key patterns in the litigation over judicial selection and then returns to the de Tocqueville quote and the issue of American exceptionalism. To assess the exceptionalism question, the chapter includes a discussion of litigation over judicial selection outside the United States, finding that it occurs in very few countries and where it does occur, is generally very limited. One exception is the recent burst of litigation in international courts over judicial selection in Poland. Another possible exception is Israel where there has been litigation concerning several judicial selection issues. Overall, the chapter concludes that American exceptionalism in litigation over judicial selection does not lie in the existence of such litigation but in the frequency of that litigation.

This chapter charts the development of children’s rights in international human rights law. The centre piece of international children’s rights law is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This chapter explores and assesses the content and principles of the CRC and its ability to remain effective in the modern law. Particular consideration is given to the implementation and enforceability of the CRC, including the development of the individual communications procedure. The chapter then turns to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and assesses the extent to which it has been able to respond to the development of international children’s rights. Through creative interpretation, the unpromising ECHR text has become a more effective means of protecting children’s rights. Nonetheless, the limitations of the text and the practical obstacles to litigation continue to hinder children who look to enforce its rights.

Lord Bingham noted that the Common Law was not an isolated island, and that English law had always shown a receptiveness to ‘the experience and learning of others’. Brexit might appear to have set back that optimism. However, British relations with continental Europe are deep and historical. British lawyers played a very strong role in the creation and founding of the European Convention on Human Rights, so ECHR rights (now incorporated in the Human Rights Act) are not alien, foreign devices. Furthermore, Britain was not forced into EEC membership, but joined voluntarily, persisting after its first two applications were rejected by General de Gaulle, because it perceived that it would be socially and economically enriched by such membership – a perception that turned out to be accurate. EU membership also provided an external support system for UK devolution, facilitating common approaches within the UK and conciliation between the UK and Ireland. The EU and ECHR provided external guarantees and entrenchment of human rights, many of which are now at risk post-Brexit.

Human rights have had a fragile status in Britain, given the overpowering doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which has enabled a parliamentary majority to achieve any policy in the absence of entrenched constitutional protections. Plans to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act are evidence of this. Dicey wrote that parliamentary sovereignty was tempered by the rule of law in the UK, but it is unclear from his work how the rule of law could operate to override the will of a despotic parliamentary majority. Brexit adds to this precarity, by removing EU human rights protection from UK law (which had something close to an entrenched status, while the UK was an EU member). This calculated deletion of fundamental rights – involved in the deliberate exclusion of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from UK law post-Brexit – is almost unparalleled in the Western world (although perhaps the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which removed the protected status of the right to abortion from US constitutional law, comes close, at least for that right).

The year 2015 witnessed celebrations around the world of an event that took place 800 years earlier in a meadow west of the city of London near what is now Heathrow Airport. Then, the main participants were King John on the one side, and leading barons and prelates on the other. They had gathered to sign up formally to a document (which came to be known as Magna Carta) with the aim of forestalling violent rebellion against the monarchy. Eight centuries later, four provisions of the 1297 re-issue of Magna Carta still decorate the United Kingdom’s statute book even though the document was not a ‘statute’ (or, for that matter, a ‘law’) in the modern sense and the surviving provisions are of no practical significance.

Most older people do not need any special legal support or protection. They are formed of diverse groups and clearly not all are vulnerable to abuses of one form or another. However, some older people are evidently more at risk than others because of ill-health, disability or dementia, or because of their dependency. They may require protection from physical or mental abuse and misuse of their money or property, and at some stage they may need help with making decisions. They may also require legal protection in respect of the provision of treatment or care, especially if the care arrangements involve them being deprived of their liberty.

Older people, especially those with dementia, may require support from diverse agencies, such as housing and social services, and are the main users of the NHS. Discrimination, victimisation or neglect of older people within the health and social care system raise important issues under human rights law, along with other domestic law or international law obligations. The Acts that are outlined in this chapter are aimed at protecting the basic human rights of people at risk, who share with all of us the right to live our lives as we choose.