Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law: The Case of Prisoners’ Disenfranchisement

TY - CHAP

T1 - Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law

T2 - The Case of Prisoners’ Disenfranchisement

AU - Dothan, Shai

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

AB - There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

U2 - 10.1093/oso/9780190697570.003.0018

DO - 10.1093/oso/9780190697570.003.0018

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 9780190697570

SP - 379

EP - 395

BT - Comparative International Law

A2 - Roberts , Anthea

A2 - Stephan, Paul B.

A2 - Verdier, Pierre-Hugues

A2 - Versteeg, Mila

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -