Chapter XII - Conclusions: The Dialogicness of Convention-related Procedures

Summary

Chapter XII is the last and concluding chapter of part 3 which aimed to establish the dialogicness in practice of Convention-related procedures with some or clear dialogic potential on paper. The chapter brings together the findings made with the help of the seven indicators of dialogue in chapters IX-XI as regards the (pre-)merits phase, the execution phase and the PJP. It thus answers one of the questions posed in chapter IV, namely whether procedures with dialogic potential on paper allow dialogue between the interlocutors to develop in practice. In the last section, an overview is presented of the level of dialogicness of the procedures.

INDICATOR 1: PROCEDURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT OF ALL INTERLOCUTORS

Based on the findings of the chapters on the practice of various Convention-related procedures, it can be concluded, first of all, that these procedures in practice allow each interlocutor but the Assembly to become involved. Although it was found in chapter VI that there are some opportunities for involvement on paper of the Assembly, they have not materialised in practice: the Assembly has not yet intervened in writing or at hearing and nor can it play a role effectively through Assembly questions/recommendations.

In practice, the states become involved most often as a respondent state, but also sometimes without being a party to a case, for example through third-party interventions. Respondent states use most of the various procedural opportunities for involvement which were also described in part 2. Additionally, it turned out in part 3 that the respondent state can take part through informal exchanges with the Court both prior to and after the communication of a case and can request an extension of the deadline set in a pilot judgment. On a more negative note, their involvement is rather limited in the course of a routine friendly settlement; they cannot request successfully a hearing, do not request debates for DH meetings and have not yet become involved through infringement proceedings. Further, respondent states do not always use the possibility to submit observations fully in response to the communication of a case, nor do they always use the procedural step of action plans/reports to the fullest. Non-respondent states play a role through hearings and third-party interventions in the (pre-)merits phase and by commenting on and asking questions about action plans/reports in the execution phase.