Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPettigrew, Mark
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-06T07:12:54Z
dc.date.available2018-11-06T07:12:54Z
dc.identifier.issn2351-6674
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/15280
dc.description.abstractIn the judgement rendered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Hutchinson v. United Kingdom (2017) states were seemingly confirmed as enjoying a wide margin of appreciation with regard to review and release from life prison terms. However, as this paper contends, after the decision of the second section of the European court in Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania (2017), that margin of appreciation is wider for the more influential and politically powerful jurisdictions than for newer states before the court, those more susceptible and amenable to policy dictation, who are subject to a differential measure of state discretion.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVilnius: Mykolas Romeris University, 2018en
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.titlePolitics, power and parole in Strasbourg: dissociative judgement and differential treatment at the European Court of Human Rightsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.doi10.13165/j.icj.2018.06.003en
dc.editorial.boardYraen
dc.publication.sourceInternational comparative jurisprudence. ISSN 2351-6674, 2018, Vol. 4, No 1en
dc.subject.facultyKitasen
dc.subject.keywordEuropean Court of Human Rightsen
dc.subject.keywordLife Sentencesen
dc.subject.keywordComparative Jurisprudenceen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS4en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record