In defence of the European Convention of Human Rights

It seems that Human Rights has got itself a bad name.  Personally, I blame protocol 11, which gave all individuals access to the European Court for Human Rights. Before 1998 people had to apply to the European Commission of Human Rights, who would then decide whether or not to launch a case in the Court on the individual's behalf -- this seems like a far more sensible system. Still, things changed, and now we have to endure the absurdity of a monkey's case being taken to the court. So if anything is to blame, it's protocol 11 -- now every idiot and their grudge can exploit a document intended to protect the democratic rights of the inhabitants of a continent decimated by fratricidal conflict.

This a document written to guarantee an individual's right to life, to liberty, to security, to a fair trial, to the freedom of thought, religion, expression, assembly and association. It also protects our right to a private life and to marry (though only same-sex marriages are protected), and defends us from unlawful punishment, discrimination, slavery and torture. This is a powerful and important document created in the shadows of the second World War. 

The European Court is now charged with protecting citizens of Europe from injustices at all levels. But surely there is also a responsibility on the part of the people it protects to treat the Human Rights charter with the respect that it deserves. Unfortunately, in recent years, this has not always been the case. It seems that every time the European Court is in the press it's because of something ludicrous. The consequences of which, are both to soften the perception of the seriousness of the Court's work, and to encourage other desperate or eccentric individuals to push its boundaries to new levels of obscurity.

The question I suppose this raises is a bit of a mind-boggler: should there also be an article or protocol in the ECHR to protect the convention itself from those who seek to exploit it? Except that this would mean restricting the rights of those who seek notoriety (or simply those who see the Court as a more flexible entity), which would surely be a human rights abuse in itself.

Either way, as much as the monkey debacle highlights the negative elements of such an accessible court, we cannot lose sight of the compassionate and well-reasoned purpose of this convention.

(Note: Before Human Right scholars lambast my diluted overview, for the sake of brevity and to avoid this turning into a thesis I am gloriously under-qualified to write, I thought it best to forego a discussion of what human rights actually are, what various interpretations there have been, and the philosophical influences (and criticisms) from scholars like Bentham, Marx, Kant, Habermas and Lévinas. Those interested in the scholarship behind it all and a more substantial articulation of these concepts should read, "Who Believes in Human Rights?: Reflections on the European Convention" by Marie-Bénédict Dembour. It's fascinating.)