European Court of Human Rights
46 member states, 700 million people can petition directly. Russia's 2022 withdrawal (17,000 cases, 25% of docket) revealed the limit: enforcement depends on states valuing membership.
December 2025: Russia's Supreme Court declared the European Convention on Human Rights void within Russian territory. This completed what began in March 2022—a sovereign state simply walking away from an international court's jurisdiction. The 17,000 pending Russian cases, representing a quarter of the Court's docket, became legally unenforceable. The organism discovered its immune system's limits.
The European Court of Human Rights operates through alarm-calls at continental scale. Individuals can petition Strasbourg directly when national remedies fail—no state action required. This architecture makes the Court accessible to 700 million people across 46 member states. But accessibility without enforcement creates a specific vulnerability: judgments depend on state willingness to comply. The alarm sounds; whether anyone responds is a political question.
The Russia withdrawal revealed what many preferred not to examine. The Court's power rests on costly-signaling through peer pressure and reputational concern. States comply because they want to remain in good standing with the European human rights community. When a state decides that community membership no longer matters—when the signal cost drops below the compliance cost—the system breaks. Russia absorbed the reputational hit and stopped answering the Court's communications entirely.
July 2025's Grand Chamber ruling found Russia committed grave violations in Ukraine since 2014, including the MH17 downing. The Kremlin spokesperson called it "null and void." The Court's finding was legally sound, factually documented, and practically meaningless. Credibility-collapse occurs when the signal no longer changes behavior.
Yet the system persists for 46 remaining members. The Court processed over 40 decisions against Russia post-withdrawal for violations before September 2022—maintaining the principle even without the remedy. Proposed trust funds would compensate victims when perpetrator states refuse payment. The organism adapts to operating with a missing limb.
The biological lesson: norm-enforcement systems work when members value membership. Voluntary associations depend on voluntary compliance. The ECHR shows both the power and the limit of consensus-based human rights protection—transformative when states care, impotent when they don't.
Individuals can petition the ECHR directly—no state action required. This makes it unique among international courts: 700 million people have personal access to challenge their governments. But enforcement depends entirely on state willingness to comply with judgments.
Key Facts
Power Dynamics
Binding judgments on human rights violations; individuals can petition directly; just satisfaction (compensation) awards; Committee of Ministers supervises execution
Enforcement depends on peer pressure and reputational concern; Russia withdrawal proved large states can simply refuse compliance; UK repeatedly threatens withdrawal; backlog creates years-long delays; influence strongest on states seeking EU membership
- States can denounce Convention (6-month notice)
- Domestic implementation requires national action
- Committee of Ministers supervision has no enforcement mechanism
- Judgments unenforceable against non-compliant states
- Council of Europe (parent organization)
- Committee of Ministers (judgment execution supervision)
- EU (distinct but overlapping membership)
- National constitutional courts (implementation varies)
Failure Modes of European Court of Human Rights
- 2022-present - Russia withdrawal left 17,000 cases without remedy
- Turkey - Chronic non-compliance, thousands of pending cases
- UK - Repeated withdrawal threats over prisoner voting, deportation rulings
- No enforcement mechanism beyond peer pressure
- Massive backlog (70,000+ pending applications)
- States that don't value membership can simply exit
- Compensation awards unenforceable against non-compliant states
Multiple states withdraw following domestic political pressure, reducing the Court to a rump organization of committed members while human rights protection fragments
Biological Parallel
The ECHR functions like an immune system that can only operate with host consent. It detects violations (antigen recognition), sounds alarms (judgments), and signals for response (Committee of Ministers supervision). But unlike biological immune systems, it cannot force the body to respond. If the host organism decides to ignore the alarm signals, the immune function collapses. Russia's withdrawal showed what happens when a major organ simply disconnects from the nervous system—the signals continue, but the response pathway is severed.
Key Agencies
Hears most important cases (17 judges)
Standard case adjudication (7 judges)
Supervises execution of judgments