Book Reviews de Bruyn, Donatienne, Sebastien Depre, Michel Kaiser, Pierre Lambert, Bruno Lambaert, Marc Verdussen. Les Exceptions Preliminaires dans la Convention europeene des droits de l'homme . Bruxelles: Bruylant, 1997. The process and substance of law are understood to be inextricably interwoven in law, and mutually defining aspects of any legal system, and the system of the ECHR is no exception to this symbiosis. In this valuable collection of essays devoted to one critical dimension of the procedures of the ECHR, namely the preliminary exceptions or conditions of access to the Convention system, the centrality of process to substance is well demonstrated. This work traces the development of the preliminary conditions as firstly formal conditions for the Court to be seized of an application under Articles 24 and 25. In so doing, it examines the dynamic definition of notions at the core of these provisions: the definition of "the state" aligned to the concept of jurisdiction and responsibility, and the notion of "violation" which includes acts as well as omissions. Next, the analysis reviews the rights of access and the definition of applicant as "victim of a violation", and related issues of locus standi within the Convention system. The authors devote considerable analysis to the complex way in which substantive principles are upheld within the procedural rules of the Convention. In particular, the Court and Commission's self-conscious perception of the Convention as a subsidiary supervisory mechanism speaks of a deep understanding of the balance at the heart of the Convention between Strasbourg and its Member State signatories, as well as of the fact that the Convention remains an instrument of international law operationalized through the medium of domestic law. The analysis highlights the pragmatism of the Court's interpretation of these rules in respect of exhaustion of remedies (Article 26) and the obligation of states to provide effective recourse at national level to quell the potential contradiction between the notion of the state as author of a violation and the state as primary guarantor of Convention rights and freedoms. The marked contrast between the rights of access to the Strasbourg organs of states (under the rarely used inter-state application procedure of Article 24) and those of other persons, groups or NGOs is highlighted as yet another defining dimension of the Court's conception of the ECHR system. The notion of "victim" as developed under the Convention, which pertains to the latter only, is discussed in great detail, and the limits of this modality is debated in a variety of contexts including the bar on actio popularis and applications in abstracto. Once again, the differences between the principles that bind individual and state petitions is examined to illustrate another of the fundamental principles of the Convention system which distinguishes it from classic international law treaties: the absence of a principle of simple reciprocity in the ECHR system. Thus, states are held to be bound by objective obligations which confer a collective benefit and can be defended by any constituent state member of that collective which dispenses with any need for victims of the violation to be nationals of the applicant state. Jurisprudential limitations, such as the principle of non bis in idem , are placed central to the Conventions aims and structure. The various jurisdictional limitations are also viewed as pivotal and are extrapolated in great detail, including those which are territorial, temporal and substantive or material in nature, as well as those which relate directly to its formal procedure: all of these restrictions are posited within the matrix of the Convention structure and jurisprudence in a way that clarifies their substantive import and systemic significance. Once again, the analysis is underpinned with a strong conception of the balances required for the successful and efficient operation of the ECHR: the need for equilibrium between the autonomy of states and the central authority of the Convention, as well as within the Convention itself. The value of this work is quite apparent: it binds a meticulous review of all essential aspects of the formal and procedural dimensions of the Convention system with insightful analysis of their substantive import for the ECHR, combining this with a vision of this symbiosis within the balance of power dynamics inherent in the Convention system. What is, however, lacking is an insight into the ways in which Protocol 11 might affect the procedure of the Convention and the ramifications that this may have on the substance of European human rights protection. Siobhan McInerney New College, Oxford University
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 01:00PM