Do States Learn? Evidence from European Human Rights System

Do states learn and improve their practices after being found in violation by a supranational court? This paper analyzes the degree to which international courts may play a pedagogical role and the extent to which states learn from their past practices by looking at the case of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) and its Article 3 (prohibition of torture) jurisprudence. In order to ensure that the European Convention of Human Rights remains “practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory,” the Court has recognized a series of new obligations in its recent history and expanded the remit of existing protections under the European Convention of Human Rights. The introduction of procedural obligations under Article 3 is a prime example of this expansion, and it constitutes an innovative solution to cultivate a robust rule of law tradition across Europe. Using an original dataset that disaggregates the Court’s Article 3 rulings at the level of the obligations, this article analyzes the extent to which countries found in violation of their procedural obligations improve their subsequent practices. This research offers two distinct contributions. First, it assesses whether being found in violation of procedural obligations decreases the likelihood of future violations under Article 3 and states’ ability to learn and improve their domestic procedures. Second, it evaluates the spread of procedural misconduct in Europe and shows whether the rule of law crisis is limited to well-known examples of Poland, Hungary, Russia, and Turkey.