The Strasbourg Court has not, at this stage, dared to affirm the right to marriage, unlike its inter American counterparts. The article proposes a comparative analysis of the decisions rendered by the three jurisdictions: it highlights, beyond the obvious and indisputable differences between the three legal orders, the similar issues — of applicability, proportionality and subsidiarity — with which the judges responsible for ensuring respect for human rights are confronted.
As the analysis also reveals, these issues are sometimes hotly debated within the courts themselves, while their understanding can be enriched by inter-jurisdictional dialogue. In conclusion, it is argued that, with regard to the recognition and protection of same-sex couples, the European Court should draw inspiration from American experiences and 1 clearly re affirm that the right to marry art.
Since his PhD thesis defended in , he has specialized in international and comparative family law. He has been a visiting scholar in the UK and the US and is particularly interested in how human rights judges influence family law. Abrusci, E. EJIL: Talk! Annicchino, P. How Wide is the Margin? Annuaire Droit et Religions, — Human Rights and judicial dialogue between America and Europe: toward a new model of law? The Age of Human Rights Journal [online], 6, 24— Ash, E.
Cardozo Law Review [online], 70— Bailey, M. Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy preferences on the US Supreme Court.
American Political Science Review, 3 , — Beschle, D. Pace Law Review [online], 38 2 , — Black, R. British Journal of Political Science, 46 4 , — Bribosia, E. Berkeley Journal of International Law [online], 32 1 , 1— Burgorgue-Larsen, L. Estudios constitucionales [online], 12 1 , — Calabresi, S.
