Fragmentation of International Law Revisited: Insights, Good Practices, and Lessons to be Learned from the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
European Court ◽  
Interpretation Process ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

The Principle of "Effectiveness" in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and Its Consistency with Public International Law – No Need for the Concept of Treaty Sui Generis

2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Rietiker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Teleological Interpretation

AbstractThe recent past has shown an ever-growing fragmentation of the international legal system where lawyers and judges are facing more and more the phenomenon of the same legal question being discussed in different fora. This is particularly the case in the field of human rights that entails the dispersal of responsibilities for interpretation of numerous instruments among various different judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, of both universal and regional nature. In order to secure coherence and legal certainty in the system, it is important to respect a set of principles and rules of general international law, in particular Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The first goal of this article is to analyse whether the Court applies the rules of the VCLT to the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Secondly, assuming that the VCLT fully applies, it will be analysed whether Article 31(1) VCLT is flexible enough to allow nevertheless some leeway for the development of specificities, especially as a result of the particular nature of the ECHR. Thirdly, it will be shown that the Court has indeed developed a set of specific methods of interpretation, aiming to render the rights enshrined in the ECHR effective. From the author's point of view, they can all be regarded as sub-forms (or partial aspects) of the teleological interpretation. He distinguishes between four dimensions of the principle of "effectiveness".

Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-18
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Ledi Bianku ◽  
Iulia Motoc
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court

This chapter reviews the regulation of migration in international law, and locates the treatment of the question of migration in the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it shows that the text of the European Convention on Human Rights is silent on the question of migration or the rights of migrants, but that the European Court of Human Rights has nonetheless emerged as a key court for the rights of migrants through its interpretation of the Convention. The chapter then introduces the overall contribution of the collection of articles as a whole: a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the migration case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Feedback Loop ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is one of the main players in interpreting international human rights law where issues of general international law arise. While developing its own jurisprudence for the protection of human rights in the European context, it remains embedded in the developments of general international law. But the Court does not always follow general international law closely and develops its own doctrines. Its decisions are influential for national courts as well as other international courts and tribunals, thereby, at times, influencing general international law. There is thus a feedback loop of influence. This book explores the interaction, including the problems arising in the context of human rights, between the European Convention on Human Rights and general international law. It contributes to the ongoing debate on fragmentation and convergence of International Law from the perspective of international judges as well as academics. Some of the chapters suggest reconciling methods and convergence while others stress the danger of fragmentation. The focus is on specific topics which have posed special problems, namely sources, interpretation, jurisdiction, state responsibility, and immunity.

Wyrok ETPC jako precedens wiążący quasi de iure a efektywność porządku Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka (perspektywa teoretycznoprawna)

2017 ◽  
pp. 7-29
Author(s):  
Bartosz Liżewski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The One

In the system of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), the basic formula for creating standards for the protection of human rights is to define their understanding of and possible modifications or changes as a result of a law-making interpretation of the provisions of the Convention. The substantive rules of the Convention since its inception, not only have not changed (they were amended or derogated), but in addition are very general. This causes, that the way their understanding sets the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or tribunal) forming in a legislative standards for the protection of human rights. That raises the interesting question of theoretical, since in public international law on the one hand the judgment of an international court is recognized as an auxiliary source of international law (art. 38 sec. 1 point d Statute of the International Court of Justice), while not applicable rule of stare decisis, meaning legally bound judgment precedent of other courts in similar cases. If, however, a violation of well-established case law of the ECHR by the national authorities is the reason for the judgment of the committee of three judges without a hearing (art. 28 paragraph. 1 point b ECHR). Judgments of the Court (the monopoly of interpretation of the ECHR) must be respected and enforced in order of national law (Art. 46 paragraph. 1 and 2 of the ECHR). This raises the natural question of the scope of their precedensowości for the tribunal and law enforcement organs in the national legal system. It is with this problem both theoretical and practical. The obvious fact is that the decision of the ECHR does not create a precedent in the sense of how suitable term in common law. However, its decisions affect application of the law on domestic, not only in reality, but partly also legal, so that it can be concluded that the judgment has the power of the normative and, to some extent binding. But what is the scope of the precedent character of this sentence? The answer to this question is the subject of considerations to be taken in the paper.

scholarly journals DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS THE SOURCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF UKRAINE

2019 ◽  
pp. 19-23
Author(s):  
P. M. Synytsyn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article has been devoted to the analysis of the nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of constitutional law of Ukraine. The nature of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights has been characterized depending on the following factors: state legal system, constitutional approach to the relation between national and international law, the level of bindingness of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for public authorities. The author has concluded on the duality of nature the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, namely that, the author considers that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have a complicated, complex structure, combining the properties of both a right-interpreting act and a judicial precedent. According to the author, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are intended not only to resolve the cases under trial, but also to specify and interpret the rules of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It has been established that the current Ukrainian legislation, establishing the primacy of the rule of law before the law, provides for the obligation of the judicial authorities to apply the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law and at the same time the duty of the state to enforce the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases where Ukraine is the defendant. In addition, as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows, the judiciary itself emphasizes in its decisions the interpretative nature and the binding nature of all its decisions to be taken into account by all States parties. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine constantly uses the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to form its own legal positions, after which they actually become a substantive element of the motivating part of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. It has been concluded that regardless of whether or not the decision of the European Court of Human Rights has been ruled on Ukraine, it is a source of constitutional law in Ukraine.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

The Debate about Soviet Genocide in Lithuania in the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dovilė Sagatienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
European Court

Abstract Since 1990 Lithuania has been claiming that what happened there during Soviet occupation is genocide, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, which embodies universal justice for suppressed nations and other groups. Due to Soviet actions in Lithuania throughout the periods of 1940-1941 and 1944-1990, the country lost almost one fifth of its population. The application of Lithuanian national legal regulations regarding this issue has been recently discussed in the framework of another postwar international legal instrument – the European Convention of Human Rights (1950). The goal of this article is to examine the main debates, which were revealed by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (2015) and Drėlingas v. Lithuania (2019), regarding the killings of Lithuanian partisans, including the recognition of the significance of partisans for the Lithuanian nation, the foreseeability of genocide “in part,” as well as the punishment for complicity in killing Lithuanian partisans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document