Available in Russian
Author: Tigran Oganesian
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2024-3-29-53
Keywords: living instrument doctrine; doctrine of consensus; judicial interpretation; evolutive interpretation; the principle of contemporanity; intertemporal law; soft law
The article analyzes the evolutionary method of interpretation through the prism of national practices and the key international cases that have influenced the spread of this method of interpretation. It also analyzes the contradictory aspects of the justification of consensus. It is noted that the “living instrument” doctrine received its initial development in international law due to the ideas of “intertemporal law” (international arbitration), the “living Constitution” (USA, Germany), the principle of “contemporanity” (United Nations International Law Commission), and the “living tree” doctrine (Canada). Each new case has clarified the methodology of international courts’ application of evolutive interpretation. The line of development and implementation of this method of interpretation in the practices of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and some universal human rights treaty bodies is analyzed. A significant part of the analysis is devoted to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which has succeeded most in developing the “living instrument” doctrine and evolutive interpretation. When analyzing the consequences of moral interpretation in the case-law of the ECtHR, vertical and horizontal consequences are highlighted. As to the role of Russia, it is predicted that despite the increase in the number of evolutive judgments in the practices of international courts, the percentage of evolutionary cases in the ECtHR will decrease due to the termination of Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe and to the strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity. Problematic aspects of the application of the consensus doctrine include the lack of both a clear quantitative standard necessary to achieve consensus among States and consistency in its application. Special attention is paid to the tendency of deliberate “crystallization” of soft law by the ECtHR in substantiating the regulatory framework of the European consensus. The Strasbourg Court continues to expand the limits of the normativity of consensus, including norms of a recommendatory nature. It is noted that references to sources of soft law within the framework of evolutive judgments raise the important question of the legitimacy of such acts, since States are required to implement a decision based, among other things, on non-binding norms.
About the author: Tigran Oganesian – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of International Law, Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Oganesian T. (2024) Evolyutivnoe tolkovanie: razmyshleniya ob evolyutsii, morali i sloszhnosti konsensusa [Evolutive interpretation: reflections on evolution, morality, and the complexity of consensus]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.3, pp.29–53. (In Russian).
References
Abi-Saab G., Keith K., Marceau G., Marquet C. (eds.) (2019) Evolutionary Interpretation and International Law, Oxford; Chicago, IL: Hart Publishing.
Dupuy P.-M. (2011) Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties: Between Memory and Prophecy. In: Cannizzaro E. (ed.) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.123–137.
Dzehtsiarou K. (2015) European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dzehtsiarou K., Tzevelekos V.P. (2020) The Conscience of Europe that Landed in Strasbourg: A Circle of Life of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, vol.1, no.1, pp.1–6.
Fenwick H. (2016) Same Sex Unions at the Strasbourg Court in a Divided Europe: Driving forward Reform or Protecting the Court’s Authority via Consensus Analysis? European Human Rights Law Review, no.3, pp.249–272.
Fitzmaurice G. (1957) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–54: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points. British Yearbook of International Law, vol.33, p.203–293.
Fitzmaurice M. (2013) Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties. In: Shelton D. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.739–771.
Gavrilova Yu.A. (2021) Ob evolyutivnom tolkovanii v rossiyskom prave [On the evolutive interpretation in Russian law]. Pravovaya paradigma, no.1, pp.50–55. (In Russian).
Heun W., Thiele A. (2012) Die Verfassungsordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
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).
Kagiaros D. (2019) When to Use European Consensus: Assessing the Differential Treatment of Minority Groups by the European Court of Human Rights. 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.283–310.
Kleijssen J. (2010) Council of Europe Standard-Setting in the Human Rights Field. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten/Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten — Bulletin, vol.35, no.7, pp.897–904.
Klyuchnikov A.Yu. (2021). Problema granits dinamicheskogo tolkovaniya Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka 1950 g. na primere obespecheniya sotsial'nykh prav osuzhdennykh [The boundaries problem of the 1950 European Convention dynamic interpretation on human rights on the example of ensuring the social rights of convicts]. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie i pravovye issledovaniya, no.1, pp.112–125. (In Russian).
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. (In Russian).
Kukavica J. (2019) National Consensus and the Eighth Amendment: Is There Something to Be Learned from the United States Supreme Court. 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.364–391.
Łącki P. (2021) Consensus as a Basis for Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR — A Critical Assessment. Human Rights Law Review, vol.21, no.1, pp.186–202.
Letsas G. (2007) A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Letsas G. (2013) The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy. In: Føllesdal A., Peters B., Ulfstein G. (eds.) Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.106–141.
Lewis C.E. (2023) The European Court of Human Rights and Its Search for Common Values. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, vol.4, no.2, pp.179–219.
Madaev E.O. (2017) Doktrinal'naya priroda resheniy Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka [The doctrinal nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights]. Sovremennoe pravo, no.8, pp.116–120. (In Russian).
Ost F. (1992) The Original Canons of Interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Delmas-Marty M. (ed.) The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection Versus National Restrictions, C.Chodkiewicz (transl.), Dordrecht; Boston, MA; London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp.283–318.
Rahman M.H. (2021) Doctrine of Living Instrument: An Inevitable Doctrine to Keep the European Convention on Human Rights Alive. Lexkhoj Research Journal of Law & Socio-Economic Issues, vol.1, no.4. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3840204 (accessed: 19.08.2024).
Rozakis C. (2020) The European Convention on Human Rights as a Tool of European Integration. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, vol.1, no.1, pp.22–24.
Shuibhne N.N. (2019) Consensus as Challenge and Retraction of Rights: Can Lessons Be Drawn from — and for — EU Citizenship Law? 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.421–447.
Strauss D.A. (2010) The Living Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press.
Sur S. (1974) L’interprétation en droit international public, Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
Theilen J.T. (2021) European Consensus between Strategy and Principle: The Uses of Vertically Comparative Legal Reasoning in Regional Human Rights Adjudication, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Tulkens F. (2022) Judicial Activism v Judicial Restraint: Practical Experience of This (False) Dilemma at the European Court of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, vol.3, no.3, pp.293–300.
Tulkens F., Van Drooghenbroeck S., Krenc F. (2012) Le soft law et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Questions de légitimité et de méthode. In: Hachez I., Cartuyvels Y., Dumont H., Gérard P., Ost F., Van de Kerchove M. (eds.) Les sources du droit revisitées. Vol.1: Normes internationales et constitutionnelles, Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles, pp.381–431.
Tzevelekos V., Dzehtsiarou K. (2016) International Custom Making and the ECtHR’s European Consensus Method of Interpretation. European Yearbook on Human Rights, vol.16, pp.313–344.