ADF International

Robert Clarke

Director of European Advocacy

Robert Clarke serves as legal counsel and director of European advocacy for ADF International at its office in Vienna, Austria. He specializes in religious freedom issues and cases before the European Court of Human Rights as well as leading efforts across Europe in defence of life, family, and religious freedom. Prior to joining ADF International, Clarke prosecuted cases of medical misconduct for a healthcare regulator in London. He qualified as a barrister at 2 Bedford Row in London, specializing in criminal and regulatory law.

During his time at ADF International, Clarke has been involved in cases before the UK Supreme Court and more than 20 before Europe’s highest human rights court, the European Court of Human Rights, which has jurisdiction over 47 countries. These cases include Mortier v. Belgium, which is challenging Belgium’s liberal euthanasia laws, and Tonchev v. Bulgaria, which challenges Bulgaria for distributing “educational” fliers to citizens which described the evangelical church as a “dangerous sect.”

Clarke earned his LL.B with American law from the University of Nottingham with honours in 2012, having also been selected to spend one year at the University of Virginia School of Law. He completed the Bar Professional Training Course at Nottingham Law School. Clarke participated in the ADF leadership development program to become a Blackstone Fellow in 2011. He is qualified as a barrister and is admitted to the Bar of England and Wales.

Clarke is also the editor of a book, The ‘Conscience of Europe?’: Navigating Shifting Tides at the European Court of Human Rights (Kairos, 2017), and the author of a chapter in the forthcoming, Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State (Hart, 2019).

The 'Conscience of Europe'?

The ‘Conscience of Europe?’

The European Court of Human Rights has the monumental task of protecting the most fundamental freedoms of more than 800 million citizens across 47 States. That’s a significant challenge given that the Court is asked to reconcile substantial disagreements between these States on controversial issues—and views on marriage, family, sanctity of life, and religious freedom are far less cohesive now than when the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted.


Images free for use

  • Echr Wunderlich

arrow-circle-up Top