English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article focuses on the phenomenon of conflating the European Court of Human Rights with the European Court of Justice and European Union in British political and media discourse. Scholars of the European Court of Human Rights and Euroscepticism often acknowledge conflation, but rarely specify the forms it takes or its specific effects on British perceptions of the legitimacy of European institutions. This article identifies three main forms of conflation: muddled conflation, ambiguous conflation, and deliberate conflation. It shows that conflation can be both a symptom of deeper Eurosceptic disregard for the roles and purposes of distinct European institutions, and a deliberate rhetorical tool, intended to weaken the legitimacy of separate institutions by tying criticisms of one to the other. The article demonstrates that conflating the different Europes contributes to the persistence of Strasbourgsceptic narratives in the British political sphere by exacerbating pre-existing concerns and providing additional opportunities to raise them in public.

A tale of two Europes: How conflating the European Court of Human Rights with the European Union exacerbates Euroscepticism