The conclusion identifies the key turning points in the Court’s jurisprudence in light of the established theoretical framework and presents several key findings that further the debate on judicial politics and on the backlash. The main takeaway is that international courts may not always attempt to expand their power. On the contrary, concern for institutional survival or public image may compel them to under-utilize their power. Courts will follow forbearing or selectively forbearing policies to prevent or mitigate political pushback or backlash. They will reserve audacity or selective audacity for moments when they feel safe from political repercussions. Drawing upon my analysis of the Court over five decades, I call for historicizing the current instances of backlash against international courts and liberal institutions. At least in the context of the European Court, an important lesson is that the backlash is not unique to today’s political climate. The Court has seen different episodes of backlash and, as a result, it has forged a resilience strategy to fend off or pre-empt backlash. Such strategies can also be traced in other courts and institutions with delegated authority.

The EU fundamental right to asylum, enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter, has always been a subject of scholarly debate. While some scholars have interpreted Article 18 as limited to a right to seek asylum, others have argued that it also confers an individual right to be granted asylum under certain conditions. Clarifying the scope and effects of the EU fundamental right to asylum is no longer of purely academic interest; courts across the EU are increasingly faced with complaints regarding its violation following the EU’s and Member States’ policy responses to the 2015 refugee crisis. The debate has been fuelled by the broad wording of the EU fundamental right to asylum, defined in relation to the rules of the Refugee Convention and EU Treaties. This chapter considers the scope of Article 18 of the Charter compared to the principle of non-refoulement guaranteed by the 1951 Refugee Convention; the extraterritorial application of the EU fundamental right to asylum and its content; and the main actors contributing to the normative clarification of the right to asylum. The chapter demonstrates the added value of the EU fundamental right to asylum as reflected in its various functions at EU and national levels.

Chapter 14 provides an overview of the core areas of the Inter-American human rights system (IAHRS) that are relevant to disability rights. The chapter analyses the primary instruments that pertain to disability, and the key judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms of the IAHRS. The chapter outlines the principal features of the American Convention on Human Rights (AHCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (CIADDIS). It also highlights the disability case law of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACtHR), before and after the adoption of the CRPD.

Chapter 14 provides an overview of the core areas of the Inter-American human rights system (IAHRS) that are relevant to disability rights. The chapter analyses the primary instruments that pertain to disability, and the key judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms of the IAHRS. The chapter outlines the principal features of the American Convention on Human Rights (AHCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (CIADDIS). It also highlights the disability case law of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACtHR), before and after the adoption of the CRPD.