Norwegian version of this page

Matthew William Saul

Professor - Norwegian Centre for Human Rights

Email m.w.saul@jus.uio.no

Phone +47 22 85 93 24

Username

Visiting address Kristian August gate 17 Domus Juridica 7.etg 0164 Oslo

Postal address Postboks 6706 St Olavs plass 0130 Oslo

Download business card

Background

Matthew Saul is Professor of Law at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. He is an international lawyer with expertise in international human rights law, general international law, and international adjudication.

From 2019 until March 2023, Matthew was Associate and then Full Professor of Law at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, teaching human rights, international law, Norwegian constitutional law, and European Economic Area (EEA) law.

Prior to moving to Norway to work as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow on the European Research Council funded project, MultiRights (part of PluriCourts), Matthew was a lecturer at Durham University, UK (2008 – 2013). At Durham, he developed and taught on several undergraduate and postgraduate modules, including public international law, international investment law, European Union constitutional law, intellectual property law, and research methods. Matthew successfully defended his PhD on the topic of international law and post-conflict reconstruction (supervised by Prof. Nigel D. White) at the University of Sheffield in 2009.

Matthew’s research often deals with themes that sit at the intersection between international law and politics. He is currently working on the role of local authorities/municipalities in the international human rights system. He has published an article on local authorities at the European Court of Human Rights (2024). This was part of a special issue of the International Journal of Human Rights on the topic of subnational authorities and human rights in Europe. Matthew edited this special issue (with Lambert). In 2026, he drew on his research to prepare a report for the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe (CoE). The report provided the basis for a resolution and a recommendation from the Congress [CG(2026)50-15].

Matthew has previously focused on the interaction between the European Court of Human Rights and national parliaments. His edited volume (with Follesdal and Ulfstein), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond, CUP 2017, was included by the Editor-in-Chief of the EJIL in his top ten list of good reads from 2017. His article on the European Court of Human Right's Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments was published in the Human Rights Law Review (OUP) in 2015. His article, Shaping Legislative Processes from Strasbourg, was published in the European Journal of International Law (2021).

Matthew has also worked on the interplay between post-conflict reconstruction policy and international law. He published an edited volume (with Sweeney) on International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy (Routledge, 2015) (see review in the ICLQ, blog symposium at International Law Observer). His monograph on Popular Governance of Post-Conflict Reconstruction was published by Cambridge University Press in 2014 (see review in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics). His working paper on International Law and the Legitimacy of Interim Governments was published as part of the ESIL SSRN Conference Paper Series, and a revised version was published in International Law and Transitional Governance (2020). He is the co-editor of the Routledge book series Post-Conflict Law and Justice. He is the author of an Expert opinion on denial of the right to self-determination in the context of prolonged occupation, and legal consequences thereof (commissioned by Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Resource Centre in Jerusalem, June 2019).

Matthew's research is available on his SSRN Page, his Academia.edu page, or his ResearchGate page.

Tags: Human Rights, International Law, Constitutional Law

Books: monograph

• Saul, M. (2014). Popular Governance of Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of International Law. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law Cambridge University Press.

Books: edited

• Jones, P. & Reiners, N. & Saul, M. (2026): Human Rights Responding to Planetary Crises: Governance, Litigation and Civic Action. Cambridge University Press (in press)

• Saul, M. & Follesdal, A. & Ulfstein, G. (2017). The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.

• Saul, M. & Sweeney, J. A. (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

• French, D., Saul, M. & White, N. D. (2010). International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques. Studies in International Law 28. Oxford: Hart.

Books: sections

• Saul, M. (2024). Judicial Methodology for the Application of International Human Rights Law. In Tømte, Aksel & Riyadi, Eko (ed.), International Human Rights and Local Courts - Human Rights Interpretation in Indonesia. Routledge.

• Saul, M. (2021). The Right to Self-Determination and the Prolonged Occupation of Palestinian Territory in Gentian Zyberi (ed.), Protecting Community Interests through International Law 2021

• Saul, M. (2020). Legitimising Transitional Authorities Through the International Law of Self-Determination. In International Law and Transitional Governance. In De Groof, E. H. D., & Wiebusch, M. (eds.) Routledge.

• Saul, M. (2017). Conclusion: How Does, Could and Should the International Human Rights Judiciary Interact with National Parliaments? In The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Saul, M., Follesdal, A. & Ulfstein, G. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Saul, M. (2017). How and When Can the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Human Rights Role of National Parliaments? In The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Saul, M., Follesdal, A. & Ulfstein, G. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Saul, M. & Follesdal, A., Ulfstein, G. (2017). Introduction. In The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Saul, M., Follesdal, A. & Ulfstein, G. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

• Saul, M. (2017). The Practice of Shared Responsibility in Relation to Internationally Administered Territories. In The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law. Nollkaemper, P. A., Plakokefalos, I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Saul, M. (2014). Conclusion: Towards a Fuller Understanding of the Foundations, Practice, and Future of the Role of International Law in Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. In Saul, M. & Sweeney, J. A. (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. 295 – 311.

• Saul, M. & Sweeney, J. A. (2014). Introduction. In Saul, M. & Sweeney, J. A. (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. 1 – 20.

• Saul, M. (2014). International Law and the Identification of an Interim Government to Lead Post-Conflict Reconstruction. In Saul, M. & Sweeney, J. A. (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

• Saul, M. (2014). Creating Popular Governments in Post-Conflict Situations: The Role of International Law. In Jus Post Bellum. Stahn, C., Easterday, J. S., and Iverson, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Saul, M. & White, N. D. (2010). Legal Means of Dispute Settlement in the Field of Collective Security: The Quasi-Judicial Powers of the Security Council. In International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques. French, D., Saul, M. & White, N. D. Oxford: Hart. 191 - 224.

• Saul, M. (2010). The Impact of the Legal Right to Self-Determination on the Law of Occupation as a Framework for Post-Conflict State Reconstruction. In International Law and Armed Conflict: Challenges in the 21st Century. Quenivet, N. & Shah, S. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press. 398-416.

Journal articles:

• Saul, M. (2024). Subnational authorities and human rights in Europe. International Journal of Human Rights. 28 (7) 1053 - 1059.

• Saul, M. (2024). Local authorities at the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Human Rights. 28 (7) 1060 - 1085.

• Saul, M. (2021). Shaping Legislative Processes from Strasbourg. European Journal of International Law. 32 (1) 281 - 308.

• Saul, M. (2016). Structuring evaluations of parliamentary processes by the European Court of Human Rights. The International Journal of Human Rights. 1077 – 1096.

• Saul, M. (2015). The European Court of Human Right's Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments. Human Rights Law Review 15 (4) 745 - 774.

• Saul, M. (2014). Identifying Jus Cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges. Asian Journal of International Law 26 – 54.

• Saul, M. (2012). Local Ownership of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Restorative and Retributive Effects. International Criminal Law Review 12: 427 - 456.

• Saul, M. (2012). The Search for an International Legal Concept of Democracy: Lessons from the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of Sierra Leone. Melbourne Journal of International Law 13(1): 540 - 568.

• Saul, M. (2011). Local Ownership of Post-Conflict Reconstruction in International Law: The Initiation of International Involvement. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 16(1): 165-206.

• Saul, M. (2011). The Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law: A Formula for Uncertainty in the Scope and Content of the Right?. Human Rights Law Review 11(4): 609-644.

• Saul, M. (2009). From Haiti to Somalia: The Assistance Model and the Paradox of State Reconstruction in International Law. International Community Law Review 11(1): 119–148.

Books: reviews

• Saul, M. (2021) State Renaissance for Peace: Transitional Governance under International Law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 26(2), 458–461

• Saul, M. (2017) On Fantasy Island: Britain, Europe, and Human Rights. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(2), 162–163

• Saul, M. (2016). The Transformation of Occupied Territory in International Law. Journal of Peace Research

• Saul, M. (2013). Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 13(1): 201 - 205.

• Saul, M. (2012). On the Frontlines: Gender, War, and the Post-Conflict Process. Nordic Journal of International Law 81(2): 254 - 257.

• Saul, M. (2011). The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victimisation, and Post-Conflict Justice edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Mortsel Intersentia, 2010. International Criminal Law Review 11: 177-179.

• Saul, M. (2007). Joint review of Towards an International Legal Community? The Sovereignty of States and the Sovereignty of International Law; and, Towards World Constitutionalism, Issues in the Legal Ordering of the World Community. European Journal of International Law 18: 213-219.

• Saul, M. (2007). Review of Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and Social Regulation. British Yearbook of International Law 78: 492-494.

• Saul, M. (2007). Review of Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Nation-and/or State-Building. Leiden Journal of International Law 20: 321-324.

• Saul, M. (2006). Review of Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law – Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality and Legitimacy. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 11: 300-303.

Other media: Research

• Saul, M (2020). Koronaloven for NIRI-studenter! Obiter-Dictum

• Saul, M (2016). Response to Başak Çali’s ESIL Reflection: The Disciplinary Account of the Authority of International Law EJIL: Talk! (May 12th, 2016)

• Saul, M (2016). Strasbourg Case Law and Its Recognition of National Parliamentary Processes when Addressing Human Rights Issues PluriCourts Blog (April 27th, 2016).

• Saul, M (2016). Parrillo v Italy: Parliamentary Process as Proportionality? PluriCourts Blog (January 7th, 2016).

• Saul, M (2014). The Role of Host State Consent in the UK Parliamentary Debate on Air Strikes in Iraq - Fifteeneightyfour: Academic perspectives from Cambridge University Press (December 1st, 2014).

• Saul, M (2014). Towards An International Human Rights Judiciary? MultiRights Blog (February 19th, 2014).

• Saul, M (2012). Occupation Law Symposium: Response by Matthew Saul. Opinio Juris (April 25th, 2012).

• Saul, M (2012). The Functional Approach to the Occupation of the Gaza Strip and the Right to Self-Determination. Opinio Juris (25th April, 2012).

Other media: Newspapers

• Saul, M, Føllesdal, A, and Ulfstein, G Brexit truer menneskerettighetsvern Dagens næringsliv (22. juni 2015).

Other publications: case notes

• Saul, M (2012). Case note: Sierra Leone Telecommunications Co Ltd v Barclays Bank plc, Judgment, (1998) All ER (D) 66. Oxford University Press. Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts

• Saul, M. (2011). Case Note: Amin v Brown, Decision on preliminary question, [2005] EWHC 1670 (Ch) (access to an English court for an Iraqi citizen during the war). Oxford University Press. Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts

• Saul, M. (2010). Case Note: Christian and Others v. The Queen, Appeal judgment, [2006] UKPC 47 (The Pitcairn Island Case). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts

Other publications: conference papers

• Saul, M. (2016), International Law and the Legitimacy of Interim Governments, European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2015 Research Forum (Florence)

• Saul, M. (2011), Accountability in Internationally Administered Territories and the Impact of a (Post) - Conflict Context on Interdisciplinary Legal Research, Law and Conflict at Durham (LCD) seminar. Durham University.

• Saul, M. (2010). International Law and the Will of the People in Post-Conflict Rebuilding. The Future of Statebuilding: Ethics, Power and Responsibility in International Relations, University of Westminster, London.

Saul, Matthew William (2024). Judicial Methodology for the Application of International Human Rights Law. In Tømte, Aksel & Riyadi, Eko (Ed.), International Human Rights and Local Courts - Human Rights Interpretation in Indonesia. Routledge. ISSN 9781032555959. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2024). Local authorities at the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Human Rights. ISSN 1364-2987. 28(7), p. 1060–1085. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2024.2354172. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Shaping Legislative Processes from Strasbourg. European journal of international law. ISSN 0938-5428. 32(1), p. 281–308. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chab030. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can review the quality of a legislative process. This article calls such review ‘active subsidiarity’ and investigates empirically when and how such subsidiarity shapes legislative processes by tracing implementation of the Court’s decision in one case: Lindheim and Others v. Norway. How did the ECtHR’s criticism of the absence of a balancing exercise shape the corrective legislative process? The article shows that the ECtHR’s reasoning caused the legislative process to include a visible balancing exercise, but that this did not enhance the democratic quality of the parliament’s work on the rights issues. The article analyses these findings from the perspective of the variety of legislative circumstances that come before the ECtHR. It is difficult to anticipate how active subsidiarity will affect legislative processes as a general matter but certain contexts, such as those of minority governments, may be more conducive to democracy enhancing effects. This has implications for how the ECtHR should formulate active subsidiarity
Saul, Matthew (2021). The Right to Self-Determination and the Prolonged Occupation of Palestinian Territory. In Zyberi, Gentian (Eds.), Protecting Community Interests through International Law. Intersentia. ISSN 9781839701122. p. 218–244. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
How should we understand the function of the right to self-determination in situations of prolonged occupation? To shed light on this question, the first part of this chapter examines doctrine on the meaning of the right in international law and its relation to the law of occupation. It explains how the right to self-determination may serve as part of the law of occupation’s interpretative framework, but also as a standalone component of the international legal framework for prolonged occupations. The second part of this chapter examines the prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory from the perspective of the right to self-determination. Specific attention is given to the Oslo Accords, circumstances in Gaza, population movement, and natural resource usage. The analysis brings more fully into focus the distinct nature of the two functions of the right to self-determination and illustrates the importance of keeping them separate. The third part of the chapter examines the legal consequences that follow from denying the right to self-determination. The focus is on the right’s importance for the international community of states and the obligations this generates. The chapter argues that when circumstances add complexity and uncertainty to the operation of a specialised legal regime, it is important to recognise that fundamental principles of international law continue to operate as a baseline securing protection of international community interests. The right to self-determination as a precept of non-domination provides legal protection in situations of prolonged occupation regardless of the haze that can form around the meaning and application of the law of occupation.
Saul, Matthew (2020). Legitimising transitional authorities through the international law of self-determination. In Groof, Emmanuel H. D. De & Wiebusch, Micha (Ed.), International Law and Transitional Governance: Critical Perspectives. Routledge. ISSN 9780367178109. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
This chapter examines the significance of the international law of self-determination for the legitimacy of a transitional authority. Transitional authorities often have a weak claim to represent the will of the people. A commitment to the international law of self-determination may help a transitional authority to persuade its domestic and international audiences that its purpose is advancement, rather than denial, of governance by and for the people. Yet the content of this law is subject to contestation. The analysis in this chapter covers several features of the self-determination practice of transitional authorities: establishing a transitional authority; developing space for political communication; and creating a popular mandate. The chapter argues that international law offers a transitional authority a means to articulate its normative vision of self-determination, but also to operate lawfully without fully delivering this vision. This reduces the value of a commitment to the law as part of an explanation for why domestic and international audiences should recognise that a transitional authority has the right to rule. It increases the importance of ad hoc instruments for the regulation of transitional periods: peace agreements, aid agreements, and UN Security Council resolutions.
Saul, Matthew William; Føllesdal, Andreas & Ulfstein, Geir (2017). Introduction. In Saul, Matthew William; Føllesdal, Andreas & Ulfstein, Geir (Ed.), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9781316874820. p. 1–18. doi: 10.1017/9781316874820.001. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The emerging international human rights judiciary (IHRJ) threatens national democratic processes and 'hollows out' the scope of domestic and democratic decision-making, some argue. This new analysis confronts this head on by examining the interplay between national parliaments and the IHRJ, proposing that it advances parliament's efforts. Taking Europe and the European Court of Human Rights as its focus - drawing on theory, doctrine and practice - the authors answer a series of key questions. What role should parliaments play in realising human rights? Which factors influence the effects of the IHRJ on national parliaments' efforts? How can the IHRJ adjust its influence on parliamentary process? And what triggers the backlash against the IHRJ from parliaments and when? Here, the authors lay foundations for better informed scholarship and legal practice in the future, as well as a better understanding of how to improve the effectiveness and validity of the IHRJ.
Saul, Matthew William (2017). Conclusion: How Does, Could and Should the International Human Rights Judiciary Interact with National Parliaments? In Saul, Matthew William; Føllesdal, Andreas & Ulfstein, Geir (Ed.), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9781316874820. p. 353–387. doi: 10.1017/9781316874820.015. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The emerging international human rights judiciary (IHRJ) threatens national democratic processes and 'hollows out' the scope of domestic and democratic decision-making, some argue. This new analysis confronts this head on by examining the interplay between national parliaments and the IHRJ, proposing that it advances parliament's efforts. Taking Europe and the European Court of Human Rights as its focus - drawing on theory, doctrine and practice - the authors answer a series of key questions. What role should parliaments play in realising human rights? Which factors influence the effects of the IHRJ on national parliaments' efforts? How can the IHRJ adjust its influence on parliamentary process? And what triggers the backlash against the IHRJ from parliaments and when? Here, the authors lay foundations for better informed scholarship and legal practice in the future, as well as a better understanding of how to improve the effectiveness and validity of the IHRJ.
Saul, Matthew William (2017). How and When Can the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Human Rights Role of National Parliaments? In Saul, Matthew William; Føllesdal, Andreas & Ulfstein, Geir (Ed.), The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. ISSN 9781316874820. p. 135–166. doi: 10.1017/9781316874820.007. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
This chapter addresses the theory and practice that help to determine how and when the international human rights judiciary (IHRJ) can promote the human rights role of national parliaments. In the first part it asks: what is the human rights role of parliaments? To what extent can that role be subject to external influence? Why should the IHRJ be interested in encouraging its improvement? What could the IHRJ promote to help advance the human rights role of parliaments? In the second part, it draws on the initial analysis in exploration of some of the modalities that are available to the IHRJ for implementation of a promotional agenda. The focus is on three modalities considered to be relatively well suited for impact and further development: interpretation of rights (especially political participation and communication rights), modes of reasoning (on deference and the proportionality test), and concluding observations by UN human rights treaty bodies on state reports. The analysis draws on the institutional frameworks, relevant case law and reports from the IHRJ, along with a surrounding body of literature from multiple disciplines. A key focus of the analysis is on the challenges that might be encountered by IHRJ institutions attempting to promote the human rights role of national parliaments and how they might be navigated. Particular attention is given to the practice from the ECtHR and two of the UN human rights treaty bodies, the CEDAW Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee). These bodies are at the forefront of developments in this area. However, the analysis is intended to have relevance for the IHRJ institutions in general. The main argument of this chapter is that advancing the human rights role of national parliaments is desirable but also creates challenges for the IHRJ. The challenges limit, but do not extinguish, what can hope to be achieved. To maximise the impact of efforts in this area, we should focus on the scope for coordination of the practice of the IHRJ across institutions and modalities. This version is free to view and download for personal use only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © 2017 Cambridge University Press
Saul, Matthew William (2016). Structuring evaluations of parliamentary processes by the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Human Rights. ISSN 1364-2987. 20(8), p. 1077–1096. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2016.1242314. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The quality of parliamentary process has been a relevant factor for the European Court of Human Rights in a number of recent judgments. This article asks: to what extent could the technical purpose for assessing parliamentary process – margin of appreciation and/or proportionality analysis – structure the assessment? The analysis combines study of the court’s practice with theory on the margin of appreciation and the proportionality test. Four cases are selected to represent different ways in which parliamentary process has been dealt with by the court: Animal Defenders International v. UK; Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine; Lindheim v. Norway; and Parrillo v. Italy. The main argument is that the court has been hazy about the technical purpose that reference to parliamentary process is serving in its reasoning. This has affected the coherence of reasoning within cases and the development of a general doctrine on the assessment of parliamentary process. Judges interested in the legitimacy of the court and in favour of placing value in parliamentary process should work towards clearer explanation of the technical purpose it serves within the court’s reasoning.
Saul, Matthew William (2015). Conclusion: Towards a Fuller Understanding of the Foundations, Practice, and Future of the Role of International Law in Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. In Saul, Matthew William & Sweeney, James (Ed.), International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge. ISSN 9781138780118. p. 295–310. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William & Sweeney, James (2015). Introduction. In Saul, Matthew William & Sweeney, James (Ed.), International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge. ISSN 9781138780118. p. 1–20. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). International Law and the Identification of an Interim Government to Lead Post-Conflict Reconstruction. In Saul, Matthew William & Sweeney, James (Ed.), International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge. ISSN 9781138780118. p. 23–44. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). The European Court of Human Rights' margin of appreciation and the processes of national parliaments. Human Rights Law Review. ISSN 1461-7781. 15(4), p. 745–774. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngv027. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). Identifying jus cogens norms: The interaction of scholars and international judges. Asian Journal of International Law. ISSN 2044-2513. 5(1), p. 26–54. doi: 10.1017/S2044251314000058. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). Creating Popular Governments in Post-Conflict Situations: The Role of International Law. In Stahn, Carsten; Easterday, Jennifer & Iverson, Jens (Ed.), Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780199685899. p. 447–466. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780199685899.001.0001. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

Saul, Matthew William; Føllesdal, Andreas & Ulfstein, Geir (2017). The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316874820. 403 p. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The emerging international human rights judiciary (IHRJ) threatens national democratic processes and 'hollows out' the scope of domestic and democratic decision-making, some argue. This new analysis confronts this head on by examining the interplay between national parliaments and the IHRJ, proposing that it advances parliament's efforts. Taking Europe and the European Court of Human Rights as its focus - drawing on theory, doctrine and practice - the authors answer a series of key questions. What role should parliaments play in realising human rights? Which factors influence the effects of the IHRJ on national parliaments' efforts? How can the IHRJ adjust its influence on parliamentary process? And what triggers the backlash against the IHRJ from parliaments and when? Here, the authors lay foundations for better informed scholarship and legal practice in the future, as well as a better understanding of how to improve the effectiveness and validity of the IHRJ.
Sweeney, James & Saul, Matthew William (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781138780118. 322 p. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William & Sweeney, James (2015). International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781138780118. 354 p. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). Popular Governance of Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of International Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107055315. 288 p. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

Saul, Matthew William & Lambert, Elisabeth (2024). Subnational authorities and human rights in Europe. International Journal of Human Rights. ISSN 1364-2987. 28(7), p. 1053–1059. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2024.2372158. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2023). Legitimacy, backlash and interpretative methodology. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2023). EMPOWERING LOCAL GOVERNANCE: A DIALOGUE ON ECtHR JUDGMENT EXECUTION (Roundtable Participant). Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2022). Legitimacy and interpretative methodology. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2022). International Law in a Nutshell – Introduction to Human Rights Law. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2022). Local Authorities in the Reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Shaping Subnational Legislative Processes from Strasbourg. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Shaping Legislative Processes from Strasbourg. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Book review: State Renaissance for Peace: Transitional Governance under International Law, Emmanuel H. D. De Groof (CUP, 2020). Journal of Conflict and Security Law. ISSN 1467-7954. doi: 10.1093/jcsl/krab008/6276512. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Human Rights Judicial Methodology. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). The Quality of National Processes for the Execution of Judgments that Require General Measures. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). Human rights in national law and national human rights mechanisms. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2021). International law in a nutshell – sovereignty, derogations and limitations. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2020). Multi-Level Governance of Human Rights Protection: Lessons from Norway’s Provision of Child Welfare Services. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2020). Shaping Legislative Processes from Strasbourg. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2020). Connecting Powers to the European Human Rights System. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2019). Denial of the right to self-determination in the context of prolonged occupation, and legal consequences thereof. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2019). Discussant: Reasoning with Previous Cases in International Tribunals. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2019). Rights-protection as a basic function of the judiciary. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2019). Human rights law in national jurisdictions. Full text in Research Archive
Føllesdal, Andreas; Saul, Matthew William & Ulfstein, Geir (2016). Brexit truer menneskerettsvern. Dagens næringsliv. ISSN 0803-9372. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2016). Book review: Carcano, Andrea (2015) The Transformation of Occupied Territory in International Law. Leiden: Brill. xxx + 540 pp.. Journal of Peace Research. ISSN 0022-3433. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2016). The UN Treaty Bodies and National Parliaments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2016). How and When can the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Human Rights Role of National Parliaments? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2016). The ECtHR and National Parliaments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). What type of parliamentary conduct does the European Court on Human Rights promote? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). What Type of Parliamentary Conduct does the European Court of Human Rights Promote? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). The International Human Rights Judiciary and the Quality of Parliamentary Process. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). What Type of Parliamentary Conduct does the European Court of Human Rights Promote? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). International Law and the Legitimacy of Interim Governments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). International Law and the Legitimacy of Interim Governments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2015). The International Human Rights Judiciary and the Quality of Parliamentary Process. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). The identification of an interim government to lead post-conflict reconstruction. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). International human rights law and domestic parliaments. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). The European Court of Human Rights and the Promotion of Parliamentary Mobilization for Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). National Parliaments in the Reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). Transitioning from Conflict: The Role of the International Human Rights Judiciary. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2014). The Quality of Parliamentary Mobilisation for Human Rights: A Role for the International Human Rights Judiciary? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2013). Creating Interim Governments after Conflict: the Role of International Law. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2013). The International Human Rights Judiciary and Domestic Institutions: Interaction as a Source of Democratic Legitimacy? Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2013). Book review: E. de Wet, and J. Vidmar (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. Human Rights Law Review. ISSN 1461-7781. 13(1), p. 201–205. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew William (2013). The Reception of Decisions of International Human Rights Courts at the Domestic Level. Full text in Research Archive
Saul, Matthew (2019). Expert opinion on denial of the right to self-determination in the context of prolonged occupation, and legal consequences thereof. Diakonia.se. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The law of occupation is a regulatory framework that applies in warfare if a hostile army comes into uninvited effective control of foreign territory. The law of occupation preserves meaning in an occupied people’s right to self-determination, by limiting the scope for changes to be made to an occupied territory, its demography, and infrastructure. Prolonged occupations, extending over many years, challenge this logic. The risks of population movement and a failure to preserve the capital of a natural resource increase in line with the length of an occupation and the extension and deepening of an occupier’s control. Prolonged occupations call for closer attention to the relevance of the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination may serve as an interpretative aid, adding meaning to provisions of the law of occupation. The right to self-determination is also relevant as a standalone basis for assessing an occupation. Occupation in and of itself is a breach of the right to self-determination. The right to selfdetermination requires an end to occupation. Under a traditional conception of invasion of a territory by a foreign state, this will require withdrawal. Where there are additional factors, such as uncertainty about the status of components of the occupied territory, the right to selfdetermination points towards a political process undertaken in good faith. In addition, the right to self-determination is a basis for assessing specific actions of the occupier. In a shorter-term occupation, the terms of the law of occupation may be sufficient to preserve meaning in the right to self-determination. In situations of prolonged occupation or other circumstances that lead to uncertainty about whether the law of occupation applies in its entirety or where adherence to the law of occupation starts to be neglected, the right to self-determination serves a backstop role. It precludes practices that will pre-empt the choices on the organisation, utilisation, and status of a territory that are available to the people at the end of the occupation. This has implications for peace processes. The consistency of a peace agreement with the right to self-determination will be increased to the extent that it is based in a direct mandate from the occupied people. The right to self-determination has erga omnes status. This gives all states a basis to invoke responsibility and call for an end to an act in breach of the right. The right also has jus cogens status. This requires states to desist from recognition of the situation created by a breach of the right. It places states under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in the maintenance of the situation. States should also cooperate to end the situation constituting a breach of the right to self-determination. This can be facilitated in situations of prolonged occupation through a greater focus on not only how the occupation but also specific actions of the occupier and occupied relate to the right to self-determination. The occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel has lasted for over 50 years. The overall occupation, the Oslo Accords, the circumstances of Gaza, the settlements and the wall, and the use of natural resources, all raise significant issues from the perspective of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination.

View all works in NVA

Published May 9, 2023 1:10 PM - Last modified May 11, 2026 4:17 PM

Matthew William Saul

Background

Publications

Books: monograph

Books: edited

Books: sections

Journal articles:

Books: reviews

Other media: Research

Other media: Newspapers

Other publications: case notes

Other publications: conference papers

Research groups