International Law Review

International Law Review

The Contribution of Precedent of the European Court of Human Rights to Dynamic Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties

Document Type : academic

Authors
Mohsen Mohebi 1
Esmaeil Samavi 2
1 Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor in Law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Science and Research Branch
2 Master of International Law, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch
10.22066/cilamag.2018.31672
Abstract
Providing the legal systems with stability and dynamism requires the existence of stable rules and at the same time with a necessary degree of flexibility to ensure that the legal system would be practical and effective if important and real changes occur in social situations. International judicial authorities, in the course of litigation, identify the basis and reality of the rules and legal principle through interpretation and adaptation with the subject matter of the cases, and in this way, meet the needs arising from developments in the international situation. The European Court of Human Rights, whose main function is to resolve disputes arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, in some cases, through the use of a static interpretation, against dynamic interpretations, has insisted on the provisions of the Convention and, in some cases, having due regard to the structure of the European community, used the evolutionary and dynamic interpretation of the provisions of the Convention. The Court, in many cases, referred to a concept called “the European Consensus” to justify implementing the dynamic interpretation of the Convention and responded to the new situations. This approach has been faced with various agreements and disagreements.
The European Court of Human Rights by applying the dynamic interpretation method takes into account the will of States as a key element in the evolution of rules and obligations in international law and at the same time has undermined the need for expressing State’s will to accept these developments. In this way, the human rights rules and obligations enshrined in the Convention are evolving with changes in the requirements of the present time and social realities.
Keywords
Keywords: Interpretation of Treaties
Dynamic Interpretation
Static Interpretation
European Convention on Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
European Consensus

  • الف. فارسی

    - کتاب

    • بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، چاپ چهارم، مجد، 1394.

     

    - مقاله

    • سادات اخوی، سیدعلی و نفیسه پارسانیا؛ «قواعد تفسیر کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در پرتو رویه‌قضایی دیوان اروپایی بشر»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، مرکز امور حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 49، پاییز و زمستان 1392.
    • سیدفاطمی، سیدمحمدقاری؛ «معاهدات حقوق‌بشری، فضایی متفاوت»، مجله حقوقی، دفتر خدمات حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 28، 1382.
    • محبی، محسن و وحید رضادوست؛ «تفسیر تکاملی معاهدات در حقوق بین‌الملل در پرتو قضیه اختلاف در خصوص کشتیرانی و حقوق مربوط به آن (کاستاریکا علیه نیکاراگوئه)»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، مرکز امور حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 53، پاییز و زمستان 1394.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books & Articles:

    • Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, Second edition, Oxford University Press, 2007.
    • Alison Brysk, Michael Stohl, “Expanding Human Rights: 21st Century Norms and Governance”, Elgar Studies in Human Rights, 2017.
    • Christos Rozakis, “The European Judge as Comparativist”, Tulane Law Review, 2005.
    • Danny Nicol, “Original Intent and the European Convention on Human Rights' Spring”, Public Law, vol. 152, 2005.
    • Effie Fokas, “Directions in Religious Pluralism in Europe: Mobilizations in the Shadow of European Court of Human Rights Religious Freedom Jurisprudence”, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 4, Issue. 1, February 2015.
    • Fiona de Londras, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, “Managing Judicial Innovation in the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 15, Issue. 3, September 2015.
    • Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, “Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties”, Hague Yearbook of International Law, 2008.
    • G. Letsas, “The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR,” European Journal of International Law, vol. 15, No. 2, 2004.
    • Gribnau, Hans L.M., “Legitimacy of the Judiciary”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 2002.
    • Luzius Wildhaber, “European Court of Human Rights”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2002.
    • Martin Dawidowicz, “The Effect of the Passage of Time on the Interpretation of Treaties: Some Reflections on Costa Rica v. Nicaragua”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 14, 2011.
    • Mowbray, Alastair, “The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, 2005.
    • Robin CA White and Clare Ovey, Jacobs, White & Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2010.
    • Brems, Eva, “Evans v. UK: Three Grounds for Ruling Differently”, (December 29, 2016). Forthcoming, Stijn Smet and Eva Brems (eds), Conflicts of Rights at the European Court of Human Right, Oxford University Press, 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2891312.

     

    - Awards:

    • D.H. and Others v. The Czech Republic, European Human Rights Reports, 2008.
    • Hirst v. The United Kingdom, European Human Rights Reports, 2006.
    • Matthews v. UK, European Human Rights Reports, 1999.
    • Micallef v. Malta, European Human Rights Reports, 2010.
    • Republican Party of Russia v. Russia, European Human Rights Reports, 2011.
    • S.W. v. the United Kingdom, W. v. the United Kingdom, European Human Rights Reports, 1995.
    • Scoppola v. Italy, European Human Rights Reports, 2010.
    • Selmouni v. France, European Human Rights Reports, 2000.
    • Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, European Human Rights Reports, 1998.
    • Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, European Human Rights Reports, 1978.
    • Vo v. France, European Human Rights Reports, 2003.
    • Soering v. UK, European Human Rights Reports, 1989.

  • Receive Date 12 June 2017
  • Revise Date 01 July 2017
  • Accept Date 30 July 2017