Treaty Interpretation at the European Court of Human Rights

  • Liliana E. Popa
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter examines the ways in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR/Strasbourg Court) applies the customary rules of treaty interpretation. Based on analyses of cases decided by the ECtHR, it argues that the methods of approaching the customary rules of treaty interpretation by this specialised court did not differ prior to, and after, the adoption of the VCLT and have been applied in patterns similar to those of the ICJ. This uniform application of customary rules of interpretation by the ECtHR has contributed to enhancing the formation of these rules as customary and to expanding the understanding of the universal applicability of the VCLT general methodology of treaty interpretation (Articles 31–33). Moreover, the autonomous or specific concept doctrines (techniques) of interpretation developed by the Strasbourg Court do not appear to replace or impede the application of the customary rules of interpretation when this Court interprets the Convention (ECHR) provisions. However, the application of the customary rules of treaty interpretation appears to play an important role in shaping the ECtHR’s own treaty interpretative approach. The isolated cases when the ECtHR appears to deviate from the basic (standard) rule of interpretation provided by Article 31(1)(2) of the VCLT do not form an interpretative path, as the ECtHR has shown willingness to ‘revert’ after such decisions to an interpretative path that is more in line with the VCLT standard of interpretation and with its own previous approaches. The argument based on the examination of cases developed in this chapter thus provides an empirical response to the theoretical discussion related to the possible ‘self-contained’ nature of the human rights regimes. It allows for assessing whether the interpretative practice of the ECtHR could be a tool for unification of an alleged fragmented landscape of international law or it contributes to fragmentation in international law.

Keywords

Customary rules of treaty interpretation European Convention of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Human rights International law Interpretative community Lex specialis Moral reading Self-contained regime Systemic integration Treaty interpretation VCLT general rule of interpretation Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arato, J. (2011). The constitutional transformation of international organizations through treaty interpretation: The ECtHR’s use of VCLT 31(3)(c). Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1951547.
  2. Bakircioglu, O. (2007). Application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in freedom of expression and public morality cases. German Law Journal, 8, 711.Google Scholar
  3. Bermann, G. A., Goebel, R. J., Davey, W. J., & Fox, E. M. (2002). Cases and materials on European Union law. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
  4. Bernhardt, R. (1997). Encyclopedia of public international law (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Brownlie, I. (1998). Principles of international law. In See also convention on international liability for damage caused by space objects (adopted 29 November 1971, entered into force 1 September 1972), Article IV (p. 458).Google Scholar
  6. Carozza, P. G. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights: A reply. European Journal of International Law, 19(5), 931–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charney, J. I. (1998). Is international law threatened by multiple international tribunals? Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Frouville, O. (2010). Attribution of conduct to the state: Private individuals. In The law of international responsibility (pp. 257–280). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dupuy, P. M. (1998). Droit international public. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously (Vol. 136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzmaurice, M. (2013). Interpretation of human rights treaties. In D. Shelton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of international human rights law (pp. 739–772). Oxford University Press. www.oxfordhanbooks.com.  https://doi.org/10.1093/law/970199640133.003.0032.
  12. Fitzmaurice, M., & Merkouris, P. (2010). Canons of treaty interpretation: Selected case studies from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on (pp. 153–238). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forowicz, M. (2010). The reception of international law in the European Court of Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardiner, R. K. (2008). Treaty interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Greer, S. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris, J. D., O’Boyle, M., Bates, P. E., & Buckley, M. (2014). Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heard, A. (1997). Human rights: Chimeras in sheep’s clothing. Simon Fraser University. http://www.sfu.ca/-aheard/intro.html.
  18. Henkin, L., Neuman, G. L., Orentlicher, D. F., & Leebron, D. W. (1999). Human rights. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jennings, R., & Watts, A. (1992). Oppenheim’s international law (Vol. 1): Peace (9th ed.). Longman Higher Education, Longman Group UK Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Kamminga, M. T. (June 1 2008). Final Report on the impact of international human rights law on general international law. Report of the 73d Conference of the International Law Association, pp. 663–685, 2008. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1150664.
  21. Klabbers, J. (2010). Virtuous interpretation. In Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on (pp. 15–38). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lauterpacht, H. (1950). International law and human rights. New York: F. A. Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Letsas, G. (2007). A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Letsas, G. (2010a). Intentionalism and interpretation of human rights. In M. Fitzmaurice, O. A. Elias, & P. Merkouris (Eds.), Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on (Vol. 1, pp. 257–272). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
  25. Letsas, G. (2010b). Strasbourg’s interpretive ethic: Lessons for the international lawyer. European Journal of International Law, 21(3), 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Letsas, G. (2012). The ECHR as a living instrument: Its meaning and its legitimacy. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2021836.
  27. Macdonald, R. S. J. (1993). The margin of appreciation. In R. S. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher, & H. Petzold (Eds.), The European system for the protection of human rights. Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  28. Mahoney, P. (1998). The doctrine of the margin of appreciation under the European Convention of Human Rights: Its legitimacy in theory and application in practice. Human Rights Law Journal, 19(1), 3.Google Scholar
  29. Mann, F. A. (1964). The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law. Rec des Cours, 111, 1.Google Scholar
  30. Mann, F. A. (1984). The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law, twenty years later. Rec des Cours, 1, 9.Google Scholar
  31. McDougal, M. S. (1967). The International Law Commission’s draft articles upon interpretation: Textuality redivivus. American Journal of International Law, 61(4), 992–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McInerney-Lankford, S. (2012). Fragmentation of international law redux: The case of Strasbourg. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32(3), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLachlan, C. (2005). The principle of systemic integration and article 31 (3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(2), 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mechlem, K. (2009). Treaty bodies and the interpretation of human rights. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 905.Google Scholar
  35. Meng, W. (1987). Extraterritorial effects of administrative, judicial and legislative acts. Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment, 10(1987), 155.Google Scholar
  36. Milanovic, M. (2011). Extraterritorial application of human rights treaties: Law, principles, and policy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mowbray, A. (2005). The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 5(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Boyle, M. (1998). The margin of appreciation and derogation under Article 15: Ritual incantation or principle? Human Rights Law Journal, 19, 23–29.Google Scholar
  39. Orakhelashvili, A. (2003). Restrictive interpretation of human rights treaties in the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 14(3), 529–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pauwelyn, J., & Elsig, M. (2011). The politics of treaty interpretation: Variations and explanations across international tribunals. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1938618 or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1938618.
  41. Pegorier, C. (2013). Ethnic cleansing: A legal qualification. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Rozakis, C. L. (2005). European judge as Comparatist. Tulane Law Review, 80, 257.Google Scholar
  43. Sands, P. (1998). Treaty, custom and the cross-fertilization of international law. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 1, 85.Google Scholar
  44. Scheinin, M. (2009). Impact on the law of treaties. In M. T. Kamminga & M. Scheinin (Eds.), The impact of human rights law on general international law (p. 33). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  45. Sheeran, S. (2014). The relationship of international human rights and general international law; hermeneutic constraint, or pushing the boundaries? In S. Sheeran & N. Rodley (Eds.), Routledge handbook of international human rights law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Shelton, D. (2002). Hierarchy of norms and human rights: Of trumps and winners. Saskatchewan Law Review, 65, 301.Google Scholar
  47. Tobin, J. W. (2010). Seeking to persuade: A constructive approach to human rights treaty interpretation. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 23, 1–50.Google Scholar
  48. Toufayan, M. (2005). Human rights treaty interpretation: A postmodern account of its claim to “speciality”. NYU Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper.Google Scholar
  49. Tzevelekos, V. P. (2009). Use of Article 31 (3)(C) of the VCLT in the case law of the ECtHR: An effective anti-fragmentation tool or a selective loophole for the reinforcement of human rights teleology-between evolution and systemic integration. Michigan Journal of International Law, 31, 621.Google Scholar
  50. Voeten, E. (2010). Borrowing and nonborrowing among international courts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 39(2), 547–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilde, R. (2005). The ‘legal space’ or ‘espace juridique’of the European Convention on Human Rights: Is it relevant to extraterritorial state action? European Human Rights Law Review, 10, 115–124.Google Scholar
  52. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Documents

  1. Assembly, U.G., 1948. Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly. Google Scholar
  2. International Law Commission, 2006. Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Geneva: United Nations. Google Scholar
  3. The European Convention on Human Rights - Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
  4. The European Court of Human Rights, available on line at Projects on International Courts and Tribunals., http://www.pict-pcti.org/courts/ECHR.html
  5. Waldock, H., 1964. Third Report on the Law of Treaties by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana E. Popa
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations