Wednesday 29 June 2011

German Book on Pilot Judgments

A new book (in German) on the topic of pilot judgments has been published. Jörn Eschment has written Musterprozesse vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. This is the abstract:
Ende 2009 waren beim Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte rund 120.000 Beschwerden anhängig. Großen Anteil an dieser Beschwerdeflut haben massenhafte Parallelverfahren, also tatsächlich und/oder rechtlich gleichgelagerte Fälle, die in strukturellen Dysfunktionen der nationalen Rechtsordnungen wurzeln. Als Reaktion auf die zunehmende Arbeitsbelastung durch Parallelverfahren hat der Gerichtshof bereits im Jahr 2004 völker(verfahrens)rechtliches Neuland betreten und erstmals ein Piloturteilsverfahren eingeleitet. Seither haben die Straßburger Richter mehrfach und in verschiedenen Varianten auf diese neue Verfahrensweise zurückgegriffen. Gleichwohl ist deren Entwicklungsstand bis dato allenfalls als embryonal zu bezeichnen. Die Arbeit untersucht Theoriehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif und Praxis solcher Musterverfahren und lotet ihre Probleme und Perspektiven als prozessuale Strategie im Kampf gegen Parallelverfahren aus.
For more on pilot judgments, see also:

* Philip Leach and others, 'Responding to Systemic Human Rights Violations'.
* And my own: 'The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges' on SSRN.

Article on European Consensus in Public Law

The article 'Does consensus matter? Legitimacy of European Consensus in the Case Law of the ECtHR' by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou has just been published in Public Law (July 2011 issue, pp. 534-553). I reported on the working paper earlier here. This is, in short, what the article is about:

International tribunals including the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) face a substantial structural handicap: they operate in a system which lacks the coercive force to enforce their judgments. Thus, to at least some extent, the execution of their judgments depends on them issuing rulings that are considered legitimate by reference to the method of their reasoning. One of the methods of reasoning commonly applied by the ECtHR is that of “European consensus”; an argument based on comparative analysis. While “European consensus” is used by the court, the Convention itself does not contain any definition, criteria or regulation of the concept. Moreover, the ECtHR has not clearly defined what it means by European consensus and it has not been analysed systematically in academic work.

This paper argues that European consensus as employed by the ECtHR is a legitimising tool, but that its potential can be unlocked only if the court clearly states its meaning and application. It is a legitimising method of reasoning because it brings clarity and foreseeability to case law in relation to almost all Convention rights, although it has never been the sole basis of a judgment and therefore plays a subsidiary, albeit important, legitimising role.

Part one considers the general framework for the analysis of legitimacy. It addresses general concepts of legitimacy and considers the factors that are relevant in the assessment of the legitimacy of an argument the ECtHR incorporates in its reasoning. It is suggested that European consensus should be sufficiently persuasive and procedurally clear if it is to enhance legitimacy. Part two deals with the crisis of legitimacy relative to European consensus that has been articulated by some
commentators. It identifies those weak points that can be mitigated through clarity and transparency of the court's reasoning. Part three defines the European consensus as it is used by the European Court. The logic that is used by the court in identification of consensus is used by national and international tribunals all over the World. This part outlines and analyses the different types of consensus considered by the ECtHR.

Tuesday 28 June 2011

PACE Calls for More Active Role of National Parliaments

The implementation gap between standards and practice is a recurring issue - and rightly so - in discussions on human rights, also in the context of the ECHR. One way to increase correct and more speedy implementation is to activate national parliaments. This is what the Parliamentary Assembly (composed of national parliamentarians) emphasized in a resolution (no. 1823) adopted last week, entitled 'National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe'. This is the text of the resolution:

1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that Council of Europe member states are responsible for the effective implementation of international human rights norms they have signed up to, in particular those of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) (hereafter "the Convention"). This obligation concerns all state organs, whether executive, judicial or legislative.

2. National parliaments are often overlooked in this context. Their potential needs to be further explored. They are key to the effective implementation of international human rights norms at national level and fulfil their duty to protect human rights through legislating (including the vetting of draft legislation), involvement in the ratification of international human rights treaties, holding the executive to account, liaising with national human rights institutions and fostering the creation of a pervasive human rights culture.

3. The members of the Assembly, having a double mandate – as members of the Assembly and of their respective national parliaments – are under a particular duty to contribute to such action.

4. The Assembly notes that the United Nations “Paris Principles” of 1993 have become the internationally accepted benchmark for core minimum standards for the role and functioning of independent national human rights institutions; similar benchmarks should be drawn up for parliamentary bodies.

5. With respect to the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter "the Court"), the Assembly:

5.1. believes that national parliaments are uniquely placed to hold the governments to account for swift and effective implementation of the Court’s judgments, as well as to swiftly adopt the necessary legislative amendments;

5.2. regrets that the post-Interlaken debate on the future of the Convention system does not sufficiently take into account the potentially important role of parliaments and deplores the silence of the Izmir Declaration in this respect;

5.3. points to the positive examples in several member states, notably the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Romania, which have set up parliamentary structures to monitor the implementation of the Court’s judgments.

6. Furthermore, the Assembly:

6.1. encourages parliamentarians to monitor the determination and enforcement of human rights standards by the domestic judicial and administrative authorities;

6.2. urges parliamentarians to exercise their responsibility to carefully scrutinise the executive in their countries when it comes to the implementation of, in particular, international human rights norms;

6.3. calls on governments to involve national parliaments in the negotiation process of international human rights agreements and in the process of implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights;

6.4. calls on all member states to provide for adequate parliamentary procedures to systematically verify the compatibility of draft legislation with Convention standards and avoid future violations of the Convention, including regular monitoring of all judgments which could potentially affect the respective legal orders;

6.5. urges parliaments to step up their efforts in contributing to the supervision of the Court’s judgments by overseeing steps taken by the competent authorities to execute adverse judgments, including scrutiny of the actual measures taken;

6.6. calls on parliaments to set up and/or to reinforce structures that would permit the mainstreaming and rigorous supervision of their international human rights obligations, on the basis of the principles below.

7. The Assembly therefore invites parliaments to implement the following basic principles for parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards.

Basic principles for parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards

1. Appropriate framework and responsibilities

National parliaments shall establish appropriate parliamentary structures to ensure rigorous and regular monitoring of compliance with and supervision of international human rights obligations, such as dedicated human rights committees or appropriate analogous structures, whose remits shall be clearly defined and enshrined in law.

These remits should include, inter alia:

– the systematic verification of the compatibility of draft legislation with international human rights obligations;

– the requirement for governments to regularly submit reports on relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and their implementation;

– the initiation of legislative proposals and amendments to laws;

– subpoena powers over witnesses and documents concerning their remit;

Such committees shall have the responsibility to ensure that parliaments are properly advised and informed on human rights issues. Human rights training should also be provided for parliamentarians and their staff;

2. Independent advice

Human rights committees or appropriate analogous structures shall have access to independent expertise in human rights law.

Adequate resources shall also be made available to provide specialised secretariat support.

3. Co-operation with other institutions and civil society

Co-operation and regular dialogue shall be maintained, as appropriate, with relevant national (for example, national human rights institutions, parliamentary commissioners), and international bodies (for example, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, European and other international human rights monitoring bodies), as well as with representatives of well-established non-governmental organisations which have significant and relevant experience.

Monday 27 June 2011

New French Judge Elected

Last week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elected a new judge in the Court in respect of France: Mr André Potocki. Potocki received 110 out of 160 votes cast. He will succeed judge Costa, the current judge elected in respect of France, on 4 November 2011. Potocki has been elected for a term of nine years. Who will succeed Costa as president of the Court is, to my knowledge, not yet known.

Potocki, born in 1950, is currently a judge at the French Court of Cassation (in the commercial section!). He was also, shortly, a judge at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. The expertise gained in the latter function may be very useful in the context of the pending accession of the European Union to the ECHR. His particular expertise in human rights is fairly limited. The CV only indicates that he was a member of the French committee re-examining a criminal decision further to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. For his full CV, see here.

The three French candidates were selected by a national committee following an open call for applications - a method which an increassing number of ECHR state parties have opted for in the past few years.

Sunday 26 June 2011

The Week in Review - June the 26th, 2011



Another Sunday, another bout of zmiana pogoda; should we make the Jerzmanowice trip and investigate Chochołowy Dwór? Or not risk the threat of rain and instead stay local? Local won today, but a good time was had down on the bulwary by Wawel at this year's Jarmark. Jousting, real ale, medieval dancing and two small boys now equipped with wooden swords. What could be more perfect? Hey! Mind where you point that thing, ty maluch...

Better retreat into the safety of the week gone by then, where we find but two items of interest waiting for us. The first was our semi-surprise(d) look at the over-use of scope. The second, scraped off our Facebook wall and re-fried here in some nearly-new oil is something altogether crazier...

Promoting itself as "The mis-spelled Encyclopaedia", Wikipeetia is either a brilliant jape or some sort of self-recursive mental torture for anal retentives and proofreaders. It's the kind of thing that could keep you up all night, laughing at the deliberately mis-spelled articles as you frantically sharpen your knives and do IP look-ups to try and trace where the site owners live.

At any rate, that's enough from me for today. This coming Wednesday sees the return of our resident media darling, Dot! Happy times, indeed. Until then,

Pozd.

Jim :) 

Thursday 23 June 2011

Sophie Graduates!!!!!






























Today, a wonderful celebration was held for Sophie Woods from Room 8 who has now graduated from Reading Discovery!
Sophie, who was joined by her family, friends, and other Reading Discovery children, (Miracle, Jackson and Dante,) leaves the programme on Level Purple 19/20.
Mrs Pat Watson, our Reading Discovery teacher, says Sophie has worked very hard to achieve such a wonderful result.
A big thank you to everyone at home and at school for doing such a great job supporting Sophie's learning.
Well done Sophie, you are a champion!!!

Wednesday 22 June 2011

scope


Wow, I’m still in shock that we haven’t done this already. It should be in the Top Three Most Wanted of our Translators’ FBI. But we here at TFBI always get our man, and when scope foolishly stuck its head out on Sunday, well...

Mr. Scope takes me back to my early days as a rookie ’reader. Back then I knew less than I know now, which is sort of like saying you know more about being smacked in the face after you’ve been punched a few times. The idea is firmly there, but the loose brain cells prevent you from fully cementing the idea before the next blow comes. Or something.

Anyway, scope is a bad case of over-use. Despite Polish employing a great deal more specific words to describe slight variations of one thing or concept (as opposed to English which will happily recycle one word to mean five different things), some Polish words suddenly leap out at you with a gun, screaming and ranting about being versatile and having a half-cousin in London or Dublin. It is my suspicion that scope is one such lunatic. Let’s crack the case files on this one:

Prior convictions
1a) The Buyer agrees to supply items within the scope of the agreement. 
2a)  …solely and only in the scope necessary for work performance.
3a) The new drug is recommended for treatment in the scope of motor system disorders.

What the judge said
1b) The Buyer agrees to supply items within the terms of the agreement.
2b)  …solely and only to the extent necessary for work performance.
3b) The new drug is recommended for treatment of motor system disorders.

Throw the book at it!
1) (mass noun) the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.
2) (n) extent of mental ability, outlook, etc¹
3) (n) range or opportunity (e.g. That’s beyond the scope of our research)¹           
4) (n)  device looked at or through (telescope).
5) instrument for observing or showing (oscilloscope). 
     
The Verdict
As will be evident by now, Evidence 1a, b and c is not incorrect usage. Technically. This, ladies and germs, is a technicality. Because although Mr. Scope appears to be innocent –
he is in fact being grossly over used!! Yes, that’s right, with TWO exclaims!

Scope seems to be one of those rare versatile words in Polish, and so when the bullets start flying he gets sprayed across every paragraph in sight. Now in natural English, it’s just not used to the same extent – at all. Good synonyms exist that are also valid in the legal and business contexts which are scope’s usual MO. The fix, then, is to use a synonym – usually range or extent (extent of/extent to which etc) – or, when not in business or other hyper-formal speak, just cut it all down to of (example 3 above).  
        
Now you’re aware of this recidivistic recalcitrant, I want you to get out there and get him! Dismissed.

Applauding the 2011 Knight News Challenge winners

(Cross-posted on the Official Google Blog and the Google Public Policy Blog)

Over the past few months, we’ve announced $5 million in grants to be distributed by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the International Press Institute—two non-profit organizations developing new approaches to journalism in the digital age—and we’re pleased to congratulate the first initiatives that have been selected as part of that funding.

Today at M.I.T., the Knight Foundation showcased 16 projects selected as the winners of the 2011 Knight News Challenge. Now in its fifth year, this media-innovation contest included $1 million in support from Google. As you’ll see in the full list of winners, these initiatives come from organizations large and small and are reminders that entrepreneurship can be sparked anywhere. Here are just a few examples of the creative ways the journalism community around the world is merging traditional skills with an online landscape:

  • At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, OpenBlock Rural will use its seed money to work with local governments and community newspapers across the state to collect, aggregate and publish data.

  • In Virginia, the Miller Center Foundation’s State Decoded will serve as a platform to display state codes, court decisions and information from legislative tracking services to make government more understandable to the average citizen.

  • The Chicago Tribune will collaborate with the Investigative Editors & Reporters organization and The Spokesman-Review on a set of open-source, web-based tools that make it easier for journalists to use and analyze data.

  • Liverpool, U.K.-based ScraperWiki will bring its experiences with public data to journalism camps in 12 U.S. states.

  • Chile’s El Mostrador will develop an editorial and crowdsourced database to bring greater transparency to potential conflicts of interest.

  • Ushahidi will build off its past crisis efforts to improve information-verification across email, Twitter, web feeds and text messages.


Other winning proposals tell rich multimedia stories, bridge the gap between traditional and citizen media and further improve the utility of data to journalists. Our sister program in partnership with the International Press Institute is also well underway. The entries in that competition are now in and the winners will be announced later this summer. We look forward to seeing the impacts these initiatives have on digital journalism and hope they encourage continued experimentation and innovation at the grassroots level.

Monday 20 June 2011

The Convention: a Beanstalk or a Tree?

Baroness Hale of Richmond, justice at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, delivered a lecture last Thursday with the intriguing title 'Beanstalk or Living Instrument? How Tall Can the ECHR Grow?'. It is a nuanced call to the European Court of Human Rights to be prudent: to avoid the ECHR to be turned into an ever-growing beanstalk - as in the fairy tale. In the lecture, baroness Hale deals with the various ways in which the living instrument doctrine has taken shape over the years and connects this to the issues national courts have to deal with. Rather than a beanstalk, she argues that the Convention should better be compared to a tree: grwoing but simultaneously rooted in a sufficient degree of predictability. She ends with a cautionary note:

As a supporter of the Convention and the work of the Strasbourg Court, my plea to them is to accept that there are some natural limits to the growth and development of the living tree. Otherwise I have a fear that their judgments, and those of the national courts which follow them, will increasingly be defied by our governments and Parliaments. This is a very rare phenomenon at present and long may it remain so.
See also the coverage and comments at the UK Human Rights Blog.

Hat tip to EM!

Sunday 19 June 2011

The Week in Review - June the 19th, 2011




Sleepy greetings from a silently stormy Kraków - the sky lies dark and heavy, ponderous, rain-stuffed clouds ready to explode at any moment. Today was the Smallest Proofreader's chrzest (christening), and I've been juggling anglik family and Polish relatives with copious amounts of food and drink. Finally though, the dust has settled and I have five seconds to spare before I plug on with an all-night quest to complete a bevy of interesting articles on various things. Ask no more.

Nothing much actually happened this week, interesting-things-to-comment-on-here-wise, although Wednesday did see an old friend drop by for an unwelcome visit:

1a. Entries should be sent until September 12th 2012.
1b. Entries should be sent by September 12th 2012.

He's often around, begging for attention and making a nuisance of himself, so let's bolt the door on this bugger once and for all. Now, send is a versatile girl. You can send on, send up, send for, send away, send away for, send in, send off, send down and send by - but crucially, ye cannae send until, captain. So when you’re talking competition regulations, bidding rules, or any kind of job tender that requires envelopes full of boring papers to be delivered to a boring government office somewhere, then sent by  is exactly the funky action hipster chic you need. Send until is to be consigned to the waste bin – remember that!


Wednesday we also had the answers and discussion to last week's quiz; see here and here respectively for all that jazz. 

Thursday saw one of my own itches scratched by Adam from WaWa and Weronika down here in K-Town. A Spanish client had given me earache about not having an EU VAT number, something which had only occured once before in my whole history of proofreading. I had assumed that since I dealt primarily with Brits, Russians, Poles and Koreans, I wouldn't have to bother, but - well, it's a big old issue, and you get the skinny on it from our colleagues over on our Facebook page

Also on our Facebook wall, I said to you, "6,3 millions of people", and asked how many mistakes and what were they? Sabina from Nowy Targ nailed it down to 3, and for general edification I'm now going to reveal what those 3 mistakes are (so stop reading if you want to do it yourself...). Okay, the mistakes are:

1) Polish comma retained as decimal point (angliks prefer full-stops),
2) Improper plural use (millions) - million preceded by a figure becomes uncountable,
3) Bad Preposition - of 
wandered in and stopped for a casual smoke; ask the firing squad to put a bullet in his brain before he finishes...

Finally, Friday brought this to the table: "Changes expected in the next decades are aimed at improving the situation."
 

in the next decades ain't no good. The correct phrasing for this all too-common mistake is in coming decades. Any time you want to say in the next years/days/months/etc, don't do it. This is because (most of the time) you can't directly follow in the next with a plural noun. There are exceptions, but they are so very, very context-sensitive and specific that it's not worth muddying the waters of clarity with them. So repeat this to yourself:

I can not follow in the next with a plural time noun - no in the next decades.I can follow in the next with a plural time noun IF I put few (but NOT several).

Dlatego: 

BAD -  in the next decades        
BAD -  in the next several decades 
GOOD -  in the next few decades 
 
Wow, total improv and it doesn't look too too bad. Well, I'm going to stop there whilst I'm still making sense (yes I am, Aga ;). Dishes to wash and all that, and finally ten more pages of academia and a nice cold beer. Cheers!

Jim. :)     
 




Thursday 16 June 2011

EU Accession to the ECHR and the Election of Judges

With the accession of the European Union to the ECHR on the horizon, negotiations are ongoing on several levels. One technical issue which needs to be worked out is how the EU wil be involved in the election of judges to the ECHR. Judges, under Article 22 ECHR, are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE). This is a body with parliamentarians from all CoE member states. Since the EU will not join the Council of Europe organization as a member, a special solution needs to be found for involvement of parliamentarians representing the EU in the process to select judges. This is currently under negotiation between Pace and the European Parliament. As a press release of this week indicates, agreement has been reached on some of the key points. The official text of the agreement is not yet finally drafted or public, but the press release includes the basics:

Statement by co-chairs of PACE-European Parliament joint informal body
The election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights following the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: statement by co-chairs of PACE-European Parliament informal body


The co-chairpersons of the Parliamentary Assembly-European Parliament joint informal body, Christos Pourgourides (Cyprus, EPP/CD), Chairperson of the Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and Carlo Casini (Italy, EPP), Chairperson of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, issued the following statement at the end of the body’s meeting held in Paris on 15 June 2011:

"There was agreement that, following accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Parliament will be entitled to participate in the sittings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and its relevant bodies when the latter exercises its functions related to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 22 of the Convention.

There was further agreement that a European Parliament delegation, of a size equal to that of the biggest national parliamentary delegations, will participate in the election of judges by the Parliamentary Assembly. In particular, agreement has been reached as to the manner in which representatives of the European Parliament will take part and vote within the Assembly’s different bodies in the election process.

These arrangements must now be approved by the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament, in accordance with their respective procedures.”

Wednesday 15 June 2011

Quiz Time - Round Two Answers!


Right then ladies and gentlemen, pens down! Following last week’s scintillating batch of brain-busters, let’s have a look at the answers do some explaining. Onwards!

Questions one and two were multiple-choice vocab tests. The correct answers are:
1) The pyramids in Egypt are a) monuments, b) statues, c) alien spaceships. (Although Stargate fans know that answer (c) also holds water).
2) Adam Mickiewicz in Kraków rynek is a a) menorah, b) memorial, c) statue.

The sometimes subtle differences between memorials, statues and monuments can be summarised thusly:
-        Monuments for super-large objects, Wonders of the World etc – think of the adjectival form, monumental.
-        Statues for smaller objects; figures of people etc. Think Lord Nelson atop his column in London’s Trafalgar Square, or Adam M. In Kraków rynek.
-        Memorials for any size object (although usually they’re quite large) which specifically serves to remind viewers of a person or event – think war memorials, or the Fallen Shipyard Workers’ memorial in Gdańsk.

Question three was also a vocab test, and stems from the fact that all too often I see plain vanilla ‘author’ instead of the proper, correct noun for describing artists etc. The correct answers were:
3) Beethoven was a composer. Renoir was an artist.  Nabokov was an author. Wit Stwosz was a sculptor. Katarzyna Kozyra is a/an video artist/multimedia artist/yadda yadda.

Yes, you can use author as a verb, and it’s quite a classy usage. But nine times out of ten, you will need to use the correct job description. Using it as a universal, blanket replacement is not good!

Okay, question four is a real bugger. Some of you know this, some of you don’t. This is one of the standard questions on my próbka for new translators, and often, although they understand the difference, they can’t explain it correctly. So:
4) Right or wrong: In this question, we’re comparing e.g. and i.e.
a) More precise equipment, e.g. a Lego microscope adjusted to this type of scanning, is
    required before further proof can be given.
wrong! (correct answer is i.e.)
b) Ready-made, individual servings of pre-packaged desserts, i.e. the small potted trifles,        
    puddings and jellies you can find in Tesco, are often of variable quality.
wrong! (correct
    answer is e.g.)

In a nutshell, e.g. is for giving lists of examples, and i.e. is used to clarify information just given. So, (a) is i.e. because all the info following “More precise equipmentspecifies in more detail exactly what kind of equipment might be used. In (b), e.g. is correct, because first of all we make a statement about the quality of desserts, and then we give a list of examples of the kinds of desserts we mean.

Question five is something we’ve covered in detail previously (here):
5) Right or wrong: In this question, we’re comparing inform and announce.
a) ‘We would like to inform that the destination of this bus has changed.’ wrong! (Announce is the correct answer)
b) Poznan City Hall would like to announce that its coffers are now full, and that it will not be applying for any more funds. correct!

Question six is another sore spot, for translators of all ranks and flavours, and again it’s something that many of you who know this, know it without really understanding why, so make a note of this one:
6) Right or wrong: 
a) Before he blew himself up, my father always said, ‘It’s worth to remember which wire is live, and which is neutral’.
b) It’s worth to look like you’re interested in what he’s saying, even when you’re not.

What you need to remember is that, essentially, we can’t use the phrase it is worth….  without a verb in the present participle, e.g. it is worth remembering which wire…, it’s worth looking like you’re interested… etc. (Unless we say it is worth it to…., in which case, spoko.
 
The joke here is that I originally used this explanation in a translator seminar in response to the fact that one or two of the more recidivistic translators had a tendency to paint eyeballs on their eye lids and fall asleep as soon as I’d begun... :D

Question seven is something for the art lovers and culture vultures to remember:
7) Odd one out: One of these geniuses is wrong...
a) Beethoven, Strauss, Chopin, Haendel, Vivaldi.
The accepted English spelling is... Handel!

Finally, question eight tasked you with sharpening a crayon and applying it to the nearest wall in order to correct some faulty phrasing...
8)  a) Funding will eventually reach a whole-country scale throughout the EU.
     b) Everywhere where you go, bicycle routes criss-cross the lanes and roads.
     c) Global warming is an undeniable issue. Conservatory efforts by world governments are 
       few and far between.

Junior mistakes, but ones that must be made on the road to wisdom. In (8a), we must remember never to use size-hyphen-noun constructions (whole-country, all-nation etc), but instead the proper adjectives – local, regional, national, international, global etc etc. (8b) uses unnecessary, ungrammatical, un-lovely repetition (everywhere where) instead of the correct everywhere that, and (c) is explained here.

Phew! So how did you do? If you were here last week you’ll recall that I invited you to email or Facebook your answers, and one plucky reader did just that! Congratulations to Adam Ł in Warszawa who got all but one right (4a Adam!), and even provided an alternative, correct answer to 8! You can see what he thought of that over here. In the meantime, a suitcase full of unmarked Monopol money is on it’s way north!

Op-Eds on the Court

Colm O'Cinneide has posted an insightful blog article about the recent controversies in the United Kingdom about the Court on the UK Constitutional Law Group Blog, entitled 'In Defence of the Strasbourg Court'. And yesterday, the online version of the Guardian newspaper published my own Op-Ed on the European Court, which I am reposting here:

Is the European court of human rights (ECHR) a dangerous monster, constantly eyeing an endangered prey called national sovereignty? Or is it rather a beloved, benign and not particularly powerful protector of human rights? Anyone following the debates in the press and in parliament in the United Kingdom and in other European countries may get the impression that the court in Strasbourg is increasingly under attack.

Disputes over voting rights for prisoners, crucifixes in classrooms and abortion rights have all made the headlines recently. Is there reason for concern that the European court is nibbling away at the power of states to decide over their own future?

Observers of the Strasbourg court might wonder why, of all possible international organisations, the ECHR is deemed to be particularly threatening. Was it not set up for the good of all of Europe's citizens? Is it not the paramount shield of protection of all those whose fundamental rights are at risk? Such assurances will not placate the court's critics. However, two recent studies shed light on both the influence and the legitimacy of the court.

Research by US-based academics Laurence Helfer and Erik Voeten have addressed the first issue: influence. Does an international court such as the ECHR really influence national policies or does its jurisprudence merely reflect existing trends? Put differently, is it a follower of national legal changes rather than a trendsetter? Through a statistical analysis of one particular field of law – judgments on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights – they have found that there is evidence that Strasbourg judgments can help to push for changes at a national level.

If national constitutions allow for it, domestic judges can use ECHR case law in their own judgments to rule that specific national laws should no longer apply – for example, laws criminalising homosexual behaviour. The judgments of the European court can also provide information and encourage mobilisation domestically. Once the court issues a judgment, national NGOs can use that judgment to lobby their government for policy changes. If the European court rules that transsexuals have a right to have their gender change acknowledged on their birth certificates, for example, such a verdict gives credence and strength to a national lobby to effect such a change.

The ability of domestic judges to do this and the existence, will and effectiveness of lobby groups are national features rather than characteristics of the European court. It seems, therefore, that the jurisprudence of the ECHR is a catalyst increasing the speed of existing movements for change rather than igniting those changes. Instead of looking at the court as a danger, critics should look inward at the national constitutional system and existing movements and moods in their society.

What then about the legitimacy of the court? Do Europeans consider the Strasbourg institution to be a credible and legitimate protector of human rights? Is it eroding under the pressure of harsh discussions in some countries? Political scientist Başak Çalı and a team of researchers from University College London interviewed a large number of judges, lawyers and politicians in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria. They found that, in spite of some criticism, the ECHR generally enjoys a very high degree of legitimacy. In fact, judicial respect for the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court is so strong that even the unpopularity of some of judgments does not significantly erode it. These academic projects show that the often hot-tempered political debates about the court and its judgments do not tell the full story.

Tuesday 14 June 2011

School Opening

School will reopen tomorrow Thursday 16 June. Please bring a bottle of boiled drinking water.
See you all there!

Paper on ECHR and Extraterritoriality

Barbara Miltner of the University of Cambridge has published a paper on Bepress on the extraterritorial application of the ECHR. It is entitled 'Revisiting Extraterritoriality: the ECHR and its Lessons' and connects the scope of the ECHR in Article 1 to the so-called 'colonial clause'. This is the abstract:

The extraterritorial scope of international human rights treaties has prompted vigorous debate in recent years. Much of this debate has focused on earlier developments in the European Court of Human Rights as well as the comparative jurisprudence of other international human rights treaties, with a particular focus on the concept of jurisdiction. This article refocuses the inquiry from a broad-spectrum comparative approach to an in-depth case study examining the complex interplay of factors influencing the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. While prior articles have focused nearly exclusively on its general jurisdiction clause, this paper recognises the equally significant contribution of a second, poorly understood treaty provision about which very little has been written. It goes on to examine the historical context and drafting history of these two key provisions prior to tracing what can be termed their irreconcilable jurisprudential evolution. What it reveals is a complex interaction between two provisions that defies facile characterization and militates against a one-size-fits all approach across human rights treaties.
Note that the paper still has a lot of track changes in it - hopefully that can be changed by the author soon in order to make the reading easier.

Monday 13 June 2011

Earthquake - School Closure

We will be closed tomorrow [Wednesday the 15 June] as we are waiting on an engineers structural report to be completed on our school buildings. We are hoping to open again on Thursday but will keep you informed via this blog.

Sunday 12 June 2011

The Week in Review - June the 12th, 2011



Hey-ho folks, how's it going? Having fun yet, or hurrying to finish some outstanding work? I've always like the ambiguity of that word - is the work late, or really, really brilliant? Hmm...

Speaking of brilliant, it's been a pretty fruitful week in terms of discussion-worthy things cropping up at work; in fact something just came up now, which reminded me that we had a meeting today! Let's look back at the action so far:

On Monday, a passing academic article had this to say: "The environment meets an important role in the development of obesity."

Two things are going wrong here. Firstly, meeting an important role is a non-functional mash-up of (possibly) two different phrases: 1) playing a role (or part), i.e. 'X plays an important role in Y'; and 2) meeting the needs of, i.e. 'The new bus service meets the needs of the community very well.' The second thing is the definite article at the start of the sentence - it changes environment as a *concept* into environment as a particular place, either previously specified or about to be in the next sentence.

 Reader Adam Ł. then chimed in with an interesting question about articles, definite and otherwise, which appeared in a book he'd read. ;) You can read all about it here, and feel free to add your own opinion on the matter too. :)

Tuesday brought this particular gem to my attention: "Since the 1st of July until the end of the year....". Long-time readers will remember our spectacular, action-packed 'Time Travel Week', where we covered the since/from issue nicely (though feel free to check out the rest of it too!).

The next exciting thing that happened was that I received a proposal. Sadly, not an indecent one,* but fun never the less:

1a. We proposed visitors to buy a t-shirt...
1b. We proposed that visitors buy a t-shirt...
1c. We propose to sell t-shirts to visitors...

Looking at the verb propose, example (1a) above is bad usage. (1b) and (1c) are correct alternatives. The reason for its subtle wickedness is in the verb-noun arrangement, "proposed visitors". We can not go directly from any form of propose straight to such a clause. This is a very, very common mistake by all speakers of English as a second language, not just translators etc.

Remember then, to always put a demonstrative (e.g. that) or some other buffering device, such as a handy preposition (e.g. to) between propose, proposing etc and whatever comes next!



Wednesday we had the long-awaited (by me anyway) Round Two of the Bad Quiz! There's still time to put the kettle on and settle down for a bit of head-scratching before next Wednesday, when we go over the answers and appoint our next winner.

 Thursday brought the full scope of amateur horror to my doorstep when this gibbering monstrosity swam up from the abyssal depths to assault my senses: "...one of the largest cellular networks in Poland, offering a full scope of telecommunications services."

Now, apart from the hugely naughty a which makes scope into a noun (such as one might attach to a rifle), scope is one of the sickest patients in the Over-Used wing of the Translating Issues Asylum.
It's a small, simple thing, which nearly everyone uses, nearly all the time

So horrifying an issue is it, that I have immediately decided we need to do a whole slot on it. Until then, think about using a synonym instead - range and extent are always appropriately dressed and more than happy to help:  "...one of the largest cellular networks in Poland, offering a full range of telecommunications services."

Friday was a little less dramatic, providing small chuckles in the way of a small error on the part of mediafire.com, the super-handy file sharing site. I posted the following screen-grab and asked you to spot the mistake - no one has yet, so feel free to let rip here too!

 Well, that's enough of my tedious, ill-considered rambling. As I said, we've got the answers to this week's quiz coming up on Wednesday, the threat of a special article on the use of scope, and - don't say I'm not good to you - another guest article by the brilliant, talented, and brilliantly talented Dotty!

Do środa!  

Jim :) 

*awful film, great score.