What question did this study set out to answer?

The article aims to evaluate how the ECtHR interprets its legitimate aim requirement and the implications of rejecting certain aims.

The four horsemen of illegitimacy? Unveiling the ECtHR’s interpretation of its legitimate aim requirement through a comparative categorization of illegitimate aims

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

This article analyzes ECtHR’s legitimate aim requirement, comparing it to US Supreme Court perspectives, suggesting improvements.

The article aims to evaluate how the ECtHR interprets its legitimate aim requirement and the implications of rejecting certain aims.
Comparative analysis of ECtHR and US Supreme Court case law regarding legitimate aims.
Assessment of aims labeled illegitimate by the US Supreme Court in relation to ECtHR principles.
Development of a two-fold argument to enhance understanding of legitimate aim requirements.
Identifies a disparity in how the ECtHR treats legitimate aims versus US Supreme Court scrutiny.
Suggests that examining illegitimacy provides insights for improving ECtHR's legal standards.
Recommends a closer link between legitimate aims and democratic principles for clearer decision-making.

Tobias Mortier (2025) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark