Evolution interpretation and the European consensus before the European court of human rights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18593/ejjl.20214Keywords:
European Convention on Human Rights, Evolutive interpretation, European consensus, Judicial restraint, Judicial activismAbstract
The interpretation of the European convention on human rights has been shaped by rich jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights which on several occasions had to resort to so-called evolutive interpretation based on the concept of European consensus. This article focuses on basic elements of the interpretation of the Convention ant its position in the application of conventional rights. It gives first a general historical presentation, then deals with different perspectives playing a role for a better understanding of evolutive interpretation and finishes with a general presentation of European consensus which is a key element for evolutive interpretation.
Downloads
References
Bureš, P. (2017, Summer). Human dignity: An illusory limit for the evolutive interpretation of the ECHR? Amicus Curiae, 110, 20.
Cox, A. (1987). The Supreme Court: Judicial Activism or Self-restraint. Maryland Law Review, 47(1), 118-138.
Crawford, J. (2013). A Consensualist Interpretation of Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In G. Nolte (Ed.). Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2015). European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henkin, L. (2009, Winter). The Age of Rights, 1-5 (1990). In A. J. Brauch, The Dangerous search for an elusive consensus: What the Supreme Court should learn from the European Court of Human Rights. Howard Law Journal.
Herdeger, M. (2012). Interpretation in international law. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia (Vol VI). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kovler, A. (2008). The role of the consensus in the system of the European Court of Human rights. In European Court of Human Rights. Dialogues between judges. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Letsas, G. (2007). A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, R. St. J. (1993). The Margin of Appreciation. In R. St. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher, H. Petzold (Eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. at 123.
Mahoney, P. (1990). Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides on the same Coin. HRLJ, 11, 57-59.
Martens, P. (2008). Les désarrois du juge national face aux caprices du consensus européen. In Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Dialogue entre juges. Strasbourg: Conseil de l'Europe.
Nolte, G. (Ed.). (2013). Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popović, D. (2009). Prevailing of Judicial Activism over Self-Restraint in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Creighton L. Rev., 42, 361-395.
Wildhaber, L., Hjartarson, A., & Donelly, S. (2013). No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. HRLJ, 33, 248-259).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright: All manuscripts submitted become the property of the Unoesc and will not be returned to the author. It is a condition of publication that authors vest copyright in their paper, including abstracts, in the Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina - Unoesc. This enables us to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the paper to the widest possible readership in print and electronic formats as appropriate. Authors may, of course, use the article elsewhere after publication without prior permission from the Publishers, subject to the terms outlined on the Copyright transfer form.
