The States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have adopted five declarations on the future of the European Court of Human Rights since 2010. These declarations identified problems surrounding the Convention system and proposed reform measures. This article examines what has become of the proposals aiming to reform the Court’s functioning, which will lead to insight into the problems surrounding the system, the type of solutions proposed and whether the declarations have led to change. The article also discusses the background to the conferences and characterises the focus of each declaration. The conclusion is that most proposals have not been implemented, mainly due to principled or practical opposition of the Court, and that the implemented proposals have not led to profound change. The influence of the declarations should not be overstated therefore, although they can be of political significance by offering support to or criticising the Court.

This article analyses the approach of key international actors to the circumcision of children, seeking, first, to understand why the policy towards the circumcision or genital cutting of girls is so different from that towards boys. As part of this project, the article considers the literature on the situation in international law, concluding that the legal position is unclear and debatable. The article notes, however, that the policy difference is justified not by key actors by reference to international law but instead by reference to their theoretical understanding of how dynamics of gender and power infuse the genital cutting of girls. The article suggests that this approach is deficient because it can only compute inter-gender harm and not intra-gender harm, with the consequence that it fails to protect boy children from harms, which a better crafted theoretical model of gender and sexuality would capture.

In recent years, both transitional justice and the role of the European Court of Human Rights in dealing with historical abuses have evolved. Transitional justice has begun to address widespread or systemic human rights abuses outside of the contexts of armed conflict and authoritarian regimes. In three key recent judgments, El-Masri v Macedonia, Janowiec v Russia and O’Keeffe v Ireland, the Court has clarified and expanded its approach to addressing historical human rights violations relevant to transitional justice in significant, if inconsistent, ways. To date, there is no exploration of the relationship between transitional justice, historical abuse outside the contexts of armed conflict or authoritarian rule and the European Convention of Human Rights. This article seeks to address that gap by considering the potential opportunities and obstacles for the use of the Convention to address historical abuse in consolidated democracies as a part of transitional justice.

This article provides an analysis of cooperative non-entrée policies in Australia and Italy. Through their funding, training and interception activities, Australia and Italy have aided and assisted Indonesia and Libya, respectively, in the commission of a number of internationally wrongful acts against refugees and migrants. These wrongful acts include refoulement; arbitrary detention; violations of the right to life; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; and violations of the right to leave. These human rights violations benefit Australia and Italy by preventing refugees and migrants from entering Australian and Italian territory. They are extensively reported and widely known. Neither Australia nor Italy can claim ignorance of the circumstances of these acts. In the light of this analysis, it is argued that, under Article 16 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Australia and Italy are therefore responsible for their complicity in human rights violations in Indonesia and Libya, respectively.