Advertisement

Sympathy Judgements of Conscience in the European Court of Human Rights

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 54)

Abstract

The activity of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the areas of law where sympathy judgements of conscience can be traced comparatively easily. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, human rights law itself already presupposes a greater role for moral ideas and values compared with such fields of law as tax law, local government law and so on. Unlike ‘technical’ branches of law, human rights law defies detailed regulation. Secondly, the broad language of the European Convention of Human Rights which the Court applies, is not precise, and leaves much to the interpretative skills of the judges. Whether the judges want it or not, they have to pass some moral judgements in order to determine the scope, limits and applicability of human rights. Thirdly, the judges of the Court represent all variety of legal and moral cultures from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Each country which has signed the Convention bears different moral cultures which can and do affect the vision of human rights. A judge who was brought up somewhere in the spaces of the former Soviet Union may differ significantly from a judge from the West. A judge educated in the Common law tradition may differ even more from a judge educated in the Civil law tradition.

Keywords

Moral Judgement European Convention Effect Argument Normative Argument Moral Deliberation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The European Convention on Human Rights. — Art. 34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahoney P. ‘Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights’. in 11 Human Rights Law Journal (1990) 57. — P. 85.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunnings N.M. The European Courts. — London: Cartermill Publishing, 1996. — P. 342.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See: Mahoney P. ‘Marvellous Richness or Diversity of Invidious Cultural Relativism.’ in 19 Human Rights Law Journal (1990) 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brannigan and McBride v. UK. — Judgement of 26 May 1993, Series A, No. 258-B; (1994) 17 EHRR 539.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The European Convention on Human Rights. — Art. 8 (2); 9(2); 10 (2); 11(2).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobs F., White R. The European Convention on Human Rights. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. — P. 31.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ibid., p. 37.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahoney P. ‘Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights’. — P. 57.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Interview with the Registrar of the Court, John Mahoney on 12th of October, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boughanemi v. France. — Judgement of 24 April 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II; 22 E.H.R.R. 228.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rees v. UK. — Judgement of 17 October 1986. -Series A. No 106; [1987] E.H.R.R. 56. Para 49.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cossey v. UK. — Judgement of 27 Sept. 1990, Series A. No 184; [1997] 13 E.H.R.R. 622. — Para 46.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobs F., White R. The European Convention on Human Rights. — P. 31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Judge Bernhardt. ‘Thoughts on the Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties’. In: Matscher F., Petzold H. Protecting Human Rights: European Dimension. — Köln: Heymanns Verlag, 1988. — pp. 65–71.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. — Harvard University Press, 1986. — Chapter 10.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., pp. 208ff.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See chapter 9 of the book.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Callewaert J. ‘The Judgements of the Court: Background and Content’. In: The European System for the Protection of Human Rights. — Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993. — P. 713–732.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balmer — Schafroth v. Switzerland. — Judgement of 26 Aug. 1997. — HRLJ. — 18. (1997) 196; 25 E.H.R.R. 598.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., 25 E.H.R.R. 598; at 616.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gustafsson v. Sweden. — Judgement of 25 April 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II. 22 E.H.R.R. 409.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    22 E.H.R.R. 409; at 456.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    ibid., at 446.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ibid., at 449.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Botten v. Norway. — Judgement of 19 Febr. 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–I.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ibid,. Para 52.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Devlin P. Judge. — Oxford University Press, 1979. — P. 89.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Interview with Dr. Stanley Naismith on 8th of October. 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 of the Convention.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    App. 7050/75. Arrowsmith v. UK, 12 Oct. 1978, (1980) 19 DR 5.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cullen H. ‘The Emerging Scope of Freedom of Conscience’. — 22 ELR (1997). Supp. HRS. 32.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    European Convention on Human Rights. — Art. 8 (2); 9(2); 10 (2); 11(2).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Balmer — Schafroth v. Switzerland. — Judgement of 26 Aug. 1997. — HRLJ. — 18. (1997) 196; 25 E.H.R.R. 598.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doorson v. The Netherlands. — Judgement of 26 March 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II; 22 E.H.R.R. 330.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ibid., at 358.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Interview with the Registrar of the Court, John Mahoney on 12th of October, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brannigan and McBride v. UK. — Judgement of 26 May 1993, Series A, No. 258–B; (1994) 17 EHRR 539.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., para. 43 of the decision.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ireland v. UK. — Judgement of 18 January 1978. — European Court of Human Rights. Series A, No. 25. [1979–1980] 2 E.H.R.R. 25. — Para. 207 of the decision.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rasmussen v. Denmark. — Judgement of 28 November 1984. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1984; [1985] 7 E.H.R.R. 372.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid., at 380.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gül v. Switzerland. — Judgement of 19 Feb. 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–I; 22 E.H.R.R. 93.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    22 E.H.R.R. 93; at 115.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    ibid., at 121.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ibid., at 122.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Interviews with John Mahoney, Stanley Naismith, Maija Junker-Schreckenberg on 8–12th of October, 1998.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goodwin v. the United Kingdom. — Judgement of 27 March 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II; 22 E.H.R.R. 123.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Goodwin v. the United Kingdom. — Judgement of 27 March 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II; 22 E.H.R.R. 123; at 145.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Ryssdal, Bernhardt, Thor Vilhjalmsson, Matscher, Walsh, Freeland and Baka. — Goodwin v. United Kingdom. — Judgement of 27 March 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II; 22 E.H.R.R. 123; at 151.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibid., para 38 of the decision.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ibid., para 37 of the decision.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., at 151.Google Scholar
  55. 53.
    ibid., at 152.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    The European Convention on Human Rights. — Art. 21 (1). as modified by protocol 11.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coppel J. The Human Rights Act 1998: Enforcing the European Convention in the Domestic Courts. — Chichester: Wiley, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawStavropol State UniversityStavropolRussia
  2. 2.Commercial Law and EthicsMae Jo UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations