Christian faith-based organizations as a third-party intervener at the European Court of Human Rights
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2021
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
BYU Law Digital Commons
Citation
Eugenia Relaño Pastor, Christian Faith-Based Organizations as Third Party Interveners at the European Court of Human Rights, 46 BYU L. Rev. 1329 (2021).
Abstract
The article examines the strategic role and growing influence of Christian advocacy groups in shaping the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). These organizations, operating as amici curiae or third-party interveners, leverage legal channels to promote conservative Christian values on contentious issues such as religious freedom, family law, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Their participation reflects a broader global trend of religious groups using litigation to influence public policy and legal norms. It highlights how transnational actors like the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF International), alongside national groups like Italy’s Movimento per la Vita, have strategically positioned themselves as repeat players before the ECtHR. By submitting briefs, these organizations provide specialized legal expertise and advocate for interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that align with their religious and ethical principles. Their efforts often challenge the ECtHR’s progressive approach to rights, particularly in cases involving same-sex marriage, gender identity, assisted reproductive technologies, and abortion.
While these interventions aim to preserve traditional values and influence the legal framework, the article critiques their potential to undermine the Court’s commitment to pluralism and individual autonomy. It argues that these faith-based organizations, though impactful in reinforcing state-centric arguments, occasionally risk narrowing the inclusive ethos of human rights law by prioritizing ideological agendas. Ultimately, the article calls for a nuanced understanding of their contributions and the need for a balanced, pluralistic legal approach.