Home > IJ № 3 (47) 2023 > The consensus effect within the framework of the evolutive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights

The consensus effect within the framework of the evolutive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights

List of Issues

Available in Russian

Price 299 Rub.

Author: Tigran Oganesian

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2023-3-44-64

Keywords: European consensus; evolutive interpretation; margin of appreciation; living instrument; European Court of Human Rights; European Convention on Human Rights

Abstract

Consensus serves as an integral tool and “helper” of the ECtHR in evolutive interpretation, making it possible to identify agreement among the Member States of the Council of Europe on ambiguous issues. Consensus remains for the time being an uncontested tool that allows the Court to be most objective in evolutive interpretation and to preserve the legitimacy of its resulting judgments. The legitimacy of ECtHR judgments in the eyes of the public and the Member States of the Council of Europe largely depends on the perfection and clarity of this consensus-seeking methodology. This study analyzes the formal grounds for the application of consensus based on the Preamble of the Convention and the rules of interpretation set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Most of the analysis is devoted to the case law of the ECtHR, allowing identification of some criteria for determining the European consensus. It is noted that sometimes the Court refers to international trends and international treaties not ratified by Member States to reach the consensus it needs. A comparative analysis also reveals synonyms of “consensus” which are used in evolutive decisions to mitigate irritation on the part of the respondent State in sensitive cases. The author also draws attention to the fact that the Court’s consensus does not necessarily have to be based on an analysis of the practice of all Member States of the Council of Europe or even a majority of Statges, since such an approach would not allow the evolutionary development of minority rights.

Citation: Oganesian T. (2023) Effekt konsensusa v ramkakh evolyutivnogo tolkovaniya Evropeyskoy Konventsii po pravam cheloveka [The consensus effect within the framework of the evolutive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 44–64. (In Russian).

References

Brauch A.J. (2009) The Dangerous Search for an Elusive Consensus: What the Supreme Court Should Learn from the European Court of Human Rights. Howard Law Journal, vol. 52, pp. 277–318.

Douglas-Scott S. (2019) Borges’ Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote and the Idea of a European Consensus. In: Kapotas P., Tzevelekos V.P. (eds.) Building Consensus on European Consensus: Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–186.

Dzehtsiarou K. (2015) European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dzehtsiarou K. (2011) Does Consensus Matter? Legitimacy of European Consensus in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Public Law, pp. 534–553.

Gadzhiev Kh.I. (2021) Vliyanie pravovoy argumentatsii na effektivnost’ mezhdunarodnogo i natsio­nal’nogo pravosudiya [The impact of legal argumentation on the effectiveness of international and national justice]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no. 6, pp. 148–161. (In Russian).

Gerards J. (2019) General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Nekotorye doktrinal’nye itogi vzaimodeystviya Rossii s Evropeyskim Sudom po pravam cheloveka [Some doctrinal results of Russia’s interaction with the European Court of Human Rights]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no. 6, pp. 26–34. (In Russian).

Kleinlein T. (2017) Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control. The European Journal of International Law, vol. 28, no. 3. pp. 871–893.

Kleinlein T. (2019) The Procedural Approach of the European Court of Human Rights: Between Subsidiarity and Dynamic Evolution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 91–110.

Kovalenko S.I. (2019) Teoretiko-prakticheskie aspekty evolutsionnogo tolkovaniya Evropey­skoy konventsii o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Theoretical and practical aspects of the evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. Available at: https://disser.spbu.ru/files/2019/disser_kovalenko.pdf (accessed: 30.06.2023). (In Russian).

Kovler A. (2008) [Untitled]. In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 25 January 2008, pp. 6–8. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/dialogue_2008_eng (accessed: 30.06.2023).

Krasikov D. (2016) Konventsionno-konstitutsionnуe kollizii i illyuzii: chto lezhit v osnove “vozra­zheniya” Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossii v adres Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka? [Collisions and illusions amid the Convention and the Constitution: what does underlie the Russian Constitutional Court’s objection to the European Court of Human Rights?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 101–117. (In Russian).

Letsas G. (2009) 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: Macdonald R.St.J., Matscher F., Petzold H. (eds.) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 83–124.

Martens P. (2008) Perplexity of the National Judge Faced with the Vagaries of European Consensus. In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 25 January 2008, pp. 33–41. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/dialogue_2008_eng (accessed: 30.06.2023).

Murray J.L. (2008) Consensus: Concordance, or Hegemony of the Majority? In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 25 January 2008, pp. 17–31. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/dialogue_2008_eng (accessed: 30.06.2023).

Nussberger A. (2020) The European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pascual Vives F. (2014) Consenso e interpretación evolutiva de los tratados regionales de derechos humanos. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 113–153.

Peat D. (2021) The Tyranny of Choice and the Interpretation of Standards: Why the European Court of Human Rights Uses Consensus. International Law and Politics, vol. 53, pp. 381–432.

Tripkovic B. (2022) A New Philosophy for the Margin of Appreciation and European Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 207–234.

Webber T. (2016) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrument Doctrine: An Investigation into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation: Ph.D. Thesis, Southampton: University of Southampton. Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413852/1/17._Final_submission_of_thesis.pdf (accessed: 30.06.2023).

Wildhaber L., Hjartarson A., Donnelly S. (2013) No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 7–12, pp. 248–263.

Zor’kin V.D. (2015) Problemy realizatsii Konventsii o pravakh cheloveka [Problems of implementation of the Convention on Human Rights]. 22 October. Available at: http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Speech/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=72 (accessed: 30.06.2023). (In Russian).