IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v76y2023ics0144818823000455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-compliance of the European Court of Human Rights decisions: A machine learning analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yıldırım, Engin
  • Sert, Mehmet Fatih
  • Kartal, Burcu
  • Çalış, Şuayyip

Abstract

The paper investigates all (971) non-executed pending leading cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between 2012 and 2020 through Machine Learning (ML) techniques. Drawing on the extant scholarship, our interest on compliance has centred on state level and case level variables. For the identification of important variables, four databases have been used. Each country party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) received 232 distinct factors for eight years. Since we aim to make a parameter estimation for a high-dimensional data set, Simulated Annealing (SA) is employed as feature selection method. In the state level analysis, Support Vector Regression (SVR) model has been applied yielding the coefficients of the variables, which have been found to be important in spelling out non-compliance with the ECtHR decisions. For the case level analysis, different cluster techniques have been utilized and the countries have been grouped into four different clusters. We have found that the states that have relatively high levels of equality before the law, protection of individual liberties, social class equality with regard to enjoying civil liberties, access to justice and free and autonomous election management arrangements, are less susceptible to non-compliance of the decisions of the ECtHR. For the case level analysis, type of violated rights, the existence of dissent in the decision and dissenting votes of national judges for their appointing states affect the compliance behaviour of the states. In addition, a notable result of the research is that if a national judge casts a dissenting vote against the violation judgment of the ECtHR involving the state that appointed him/her, the judgment is likely not to be executed by the respondent state.

Suggested Citation

  • Yıldırım, Engin & Sert, Mehmet Fatih & Kartal, Burcu & Çalış, Şuayyip, 2023. "Non-compliance of the European Court of Human Rights decisions: A machine learning analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:76:y:2023:i:c:s0144818823000455
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2023.106167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818823000455
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2023.106167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Josh Blackman, 2017. "A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Stiansen, Øyvind, 2021. "Directing Compliance? Remedial Approach and Compliance with European Court of Human Rights Judgments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 899-907, April.
    3. Hausladen, Carina I. & Schubert, Marcel H. & Ash, Elliott, 2020. "Text classification of ideological direction in judicial opinions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    5. Grewal, Sharanbir & Voeten, Erik, 2015. "Are New Democracies Better Human Rights Compliers?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 497-518, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tom S Clark, 2016. "Scope and precedent: judicial rule-making under uncertainty," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 353-384, July.
    2. Emily Hencken Ritter & Scott Wolford, 2012. "Bargaining and the effectiveness of international criminal regimes," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 149-171, April.
    3. Davis, Yehuda & Govindaraj, Suresh & Suslava, Kate, 2024. "Does the stock market anticipate events and supreme court decisions in corporate cases?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Anthony Niblett, 2018. "Regulatory Reform in Ontario: Machine Learning and Regulation," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 507, March.
    5. Ignacio Ortiz Betancourt & Téllez María del Carmen Meza, 2021. "Social Media and E-commerce as Mechanisms to Enhance Entrepreneurship Among Graduate Students," European Journal of Economics and Business Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 5, September.
    6. Amedeo Santosuosso & Giulia Pinotti, 2020. "Bottleneck or Crossroad? Problems of Legal Sources Annotation and Some Theoretical Thoughts," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Alain Marciano & Antonio Nicita & Giovanni Battista Ramello, 2020. "Big data and big techs: understanding the value of information in platform capitalism," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 345-358, December.
    8. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    9. Ulenaers Jasper, 2020. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Right to a Fair Trial: Towards a Robot Judge?," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1, August.
    10. Shay Lavie, 2017. "Discretionary review and undesired cases," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 265-285, October.
    11. Zhong, Weifeng & Chan, Julian, 2020. "Predicting Authoritarian Crackdowns: A Machine Learning Approach," Working Papers 10464, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    12. Gauri, Varun & Staton, Jeffrey K. & Cullell, Jorge Vargas, 2013. "A public strategy for compliance monitoring," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6523, The World Bank.
    13. Vanberg, Georg, 2011. "Substance vs. procedure: Constitutional enforcement and constitutional choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 309-318.
    14. Luis Enriquez, 2024. "A Personal data Value at Risk Approach," Papers 2411.03217, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    15. Berliner, Daniel & Ingrams, Alex & Piotrowski, Suzanne, 2022. "Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 111060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Michael A. Zilis & Xander Borne, 2021. "Defying the Supreme Court: The Impact of Overt Resistance to Landmark Legal Rulings," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 920-938, March.
    17. Bruno Mathis, 2022. "Extracting Proceedings Data from Court Cases with Machine Learning," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Stiansen, Øyvind & Naurin, Daniel & Michailidou, Asimina & Riganova, Adriana, 2023. "Enforcing the Rule of Law in the EU: Effects on Public Opinion," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt2jz3g89m, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    19. Daniel Berliner & Alex Ingrams & Suzanne J. Piotrowski, 2022. "Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: Theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1343-1361, October.
    20. Bălan Carmen, 2018. "The Impact of Conversational Agents on Humans in Services: Research Questions and Hypotheses," International Conference on Marketing and Business Development Journal, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(2), pages 33-55, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:76:y:2023:i:c:s0144818823000455. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.