{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/386287"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/386287","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The United Kingdom's Responses to Adverse Strasbourg Judgments: A Look Inside Government","abstract":"This thesis seeks to explain how the UK responds to adverse European Court of Human Rights judgments and why it responds in the ways that it does. Existing scholarship fails to provide a convincing answer: international literature does not explain state internal workings and domestic literature considers possible influences or constraints on the UK Government rather than the Government itself. This is problematic as Government is responsible for international compliance with judgments under its prerogative powers and domestic implementation of judgments due to its de facto dominance of formulation, development and execution of public policy. Therefore, I look inside Government through interviews with current and former officials, ministers and advisers. I present my findings in four stages. First, I set out the people and processes involved, demonstrating that in practice, the process is flexible and can vary significantly from official guidance. Furthermore, occupants of roles vary from case to case, resulting in different responses. Secondly, I set out the legal, policy and political choices for those involved, examining those related to: the legal obligations following an adverse judgment; the substantive response; and the vehicle for the response. Thirdly, I illustrate the extent of the complexity and fluidity of the internal organisation, processes and choices through a case study, Hirst v United Kingdom, arguing that the prolonged non-compliance and subsequent case closure were due to the (mis)alignment of politics and law, and whether willing individuals were able to make and take the necessary choices and actions. Lastly, I argue that it is the people who hold positions within government who largely determine the UK’s responses to adverse Strasbourg judgments. Their objectives, beliefs, relationships, personalities, interests, knowledge, abilities, motivations and backgrounds affect their choices and actions. They operate within fluid and malleable constraints: internal-institutional, wider constitutional, and external.","abstract_html":"This thesis seeks to explain how the UK responds to adverse European Court of Human Rights judgments and why it responds in the ways that it does. Existing scholarship fails to provide a convincing answer: international literature does not explain state internal workings and domestic literature considers possible influences or constraints on the UK Government rather than the Government itself. This is problematic as Government is responsible for international compliance with judgments under its prerogative powers and domestic implementation of judgments due to its de facto dominance of formulation, development and execution of public policy. Therefore, I look inside Government through interviews with current and former officials, ministers and advisers. I present my findings in four stages. First, I set out the people and processes involved, demonstrating that in practice, the process is flexible and can vary significantly from official guidance. Furthermore, occupants of roles vary from case to case, resulting in different responses. Secondly, I set out the legal, policy and political choices for those involved, examining those related to: the legal obligations following an adverse judgment; the substantive response; and the vehicle for the response. Thirdly, I illustrate the extent of the complexity and fluidity of the internal organisation, processes and choices through a case study, Hirst v United Kingdom, arguing that the prolonged non-compliance and subsequent case closure were due to the (mis)alignment of politics and law, and whether willing individuals were able to make and take the necessary choices and actions. Lastly, I argue that it is the people who hold positions within government who largely determine the UK’s responses to adverse Strasbourg judgments. Their objectives, beliefs, relationships, personalities, interests, knowledge, abilities, motivations and backgrounds affect their choices and actions. They operate within fluid and malleable constraints: internal-institutional, wider constitutional, and external.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Robinson, Dora"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Young, Alison"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-10-31","date_published":"2024-10-31","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:54Z","subjects":["European Court of Human Rights","Strasbourg","Constitutional Law","Civil Service","Human Rights Law","International Law","Foreign Relations Law","UK Government","Socio-legal Studies"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/743ebc29-03e8-4413-9eb5-38530a75ce21/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.119582","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Young, Alison"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["Open-Oxford-Cambridge Doctoral Training Partnership (Arts and Humanities Research Council); Isaac Newton Trust"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Robinson, Dora"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-10-31"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/386287"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["European Court of Human Rights","Strasbourg","Constitutional Law","Civil Service","Human Rights Law","International Law","Foreign Relations Law","UK Government","Socio-legal Studies"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/743ebc29-03e8-4413-9eb5-38530a75ce21/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargodate","label":"Dc Rights Embargodate","values":["2026-07-02"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargotype","label":"Dc Rights Embargotype","values":["embargo"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.119582"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/b52c28be-e3e5-41d7-8ff8-177a49a892f4/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis seeks to explain how the UK responds to adverse European Court of Human Rights judgments and why it responds in the ways that it does. Existing scholarship fails to provide a convincing answer: international literature does not explain state internal workings and domestic literature considers possible influences or constraints on the UK Government rather than the Government itself. This is problematic as Government is responsible for international compliance with judgments under its prerogative powers and domestic implementation of judgments due to its de facto dominance of formulation, development and execution of public policy. Therefore, I look inside Government through interviews with current and former officials, ministers and advisers. I present my findings in four stages. First, I set out the people and processes involved, demonstrating that in practice, the process is flexible and can vary significantly from official guidance. Furthermore, occupants of roles vary from case to case, resulting in different responses. Secondly, I set out the legal, policy and political choices for those involved, examining those related to: the legal obligations following an adverse judgment; the substantive response; and the vehicle for the response. Thirdly, I illustrate the extent of the complexity and fluidity of the internal organisation, processes and choices through a case study, Hirst v United Kingdom, arguing that the prolonged non-compliance and subsequent case closure were due to the (mis)alignment of politics and law, and whether willing individuals were able to make and take the necessary choices and actions. Lastly, I argue that it is the people who hold positions within government who largely determine the UK’s responses to adverse Strasbourg judgments. Their objectives, beliefs, relationships, personalities, interests, knowledge, abilities, motivations and backgrounds affect their choices and actions. They operate within fluid and malleable constraints: internal-institutional, wider constitutional, and external."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["854189a14b74d5144771e88b62c000be","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The United Kingdom's Responses to Adverse Strasbourg Judgments: A Look Inside Government"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Young, Alison"],"dc:contributor.sponsor":["Open-Oxford-Cambridge Doctoral Training Partnership (Arts and Humanities Research Council); Isaac Newton Trust"],"dc:creator":["Robinson, Dora"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-10-31"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis seeks to explain how the UK responds to adverse European Court of Human Rights judgments and why it responds in the ways that it does. Existing scholarship fails to provide a convincing answer: international literature does not explain state internal workings and domestic literature considers possible influences or constraints on the UK Government rather than the Government itself. This is problematic as Government is responsible for international compliance with judgments under its prerogative powers and domestic implementation of judgments due to its de facto dominance of formulation, development and execution of public policy. Therefore, I look inside Government through interviews with current and former officials, ministers and advisers. I present my findings in four stages. First, I set out the people and processes involved, demonstrating that in practice, the process is flexible and can vary significantly from official guidance. Furthermore, occupants of roles vary from case to case, resulting in different responses. Secondly, I set out the legal, policy and political choices for those involved, examining those related to: the legal obligations following an adverse judgment; the substantive response; and the vehicle for the response. Thirdly, I illustrate the extent of the complexity and fluidity of the internal organisation, processes and choices through a case study, Hirst v United Kingdom, arguing that the prolonged non-compliance and subsequent case closure were due to the (mis)alignment of politics and law, and whether willing individuals were able to make and take the necessary choices and actions. Lastly, I argue that it is the people who hold positions within government who largely determine the UK’s responses to adverse Strasbourg judgments. Their objectives, beliefs, relationships, personalities, interests, knowledge, abilities, motivations and backgrounds affect their choices and actions. They operate within fluid and malleable constraints: internal-institutional, wider constitutional, and external."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["854189a14b74d5144771e88b62c000be","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.119582"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/b52c28be-e3e5-41d7-8ff8-177a49a892f4/download"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/386287"],"dc:rights":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/743ebc29-03e8-4413-9eb5-38530a75ce21/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"dc:rights.embargodate":["2026-07-02"],"dc:rights.embargotype":["embargo"],"dc:subject":["European Court of Human Rights","Strasbourg","Constitutional Law","Civil Service","Human Rights Law","International Law","Foreign Relations Law","UK Government","Socio-legal Studies"],"dc:title":["The United Kingdom's Responses to Adverse Strasbourg Judgments: A Look Inside Government"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:54Z"}