Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Comparative International Law |
| Editors | Anthea Roberts , Paul B. Stephan, Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Mila Versteeg |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Publication date | 1 Jan 2018 |
| Pages | 379-395 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9780190697570 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9780190697600 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2018 |