Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Cultural Concerns in the Interpretation of Traditional Individual Rights: Lessons from the International Human Rights Jurisprudence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spheres of Global Justice

  • 1871 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter proposes to explore the different ways in which cultural concerns can permeate the interpretation of classical civil and political rights, thus enabling them to contribute to ensure respect for cultural differences. Through the analysis of a sample of cases drawn from the jurisprudence of two major international human rights institutions, namely the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the paper first highlights the diverse modalities through which cultural considerations can impact on human rights’ interpretation. As discussed in the second part of the chapter, these observations shed new light on the relation between classical individual rights and minority rights: rather than forming a separate category of rights, it is argued, the latter should be seen as deriving from and extending the former.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The European Convention on Human Rights was opened for signature in 1950 within the Council of Europe and entered into force in 1953.

  2. 2.

    The ICCPR was opened for signature on 19 December 1966 in the United Nations and entered into force on 23 March 1976.

  3. 3.

    In the case of the HRC, only parties in states that have ratified the Optional protocol to the Covenant may be the object of an individual complaint (G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966). Moreover, unlike the ECtHR, the HRC is not a judicial institution and its findings are not legally binding on contracting states. Nonetheless, given that it is the sole body entitled to make authoritative interpretations of the ICCPR, the views it expresses on the meaning and scope of the rights enshrined in it are endowed with considerable authority (Conte et al. 2004: 6).

  4. 4.

    This case law has already been extensively analysed elsewhere. See Burchill (2004), Pentassuglia (2003, 2002), and Henrard (2000).

  5. 5.

    See, for instance, Eur. Ct. H. R., Airey v. Ireland (Appl. No. 6289/73), 9 October 1979, Serie A 32, para. 24; Eur. Ct. H. R., Soering v. the United Kingdom (Appl. 14038/88), 7 July 1989, Serie A 161, para. 87.

  6. 6.

    Airey v. Ireland, para. 24–28.

  7. 7.

    Article 6.3(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 14.3(f) of ICCPR.

  8. 8.

    Article 5(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 14.3(a) of ICCPR. See also Article 6.3(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  9. 9.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (3d section), Chishti v. Portugal (Appl. No. 57248/00), 2 October 2003 (admissibility decision). The ban was grounded on security reasons. The Court noted that a solution had been proposed to the applicant with the agreement of the prison authority: the U.S. Embassy had found a translator willing and able to translate all incoming and outgoing mail from English into Urdu and vice-versa without costs to him. This arrangement was refused by the applicant, for reasons the Court deemed unconvincing. Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the application was declared manifestly ill-founded.

  10. 10.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (3rd section), ČOnka v. Belgium, 99), /99), Rep. 2002-I.

  11. 11.

    ČOnka v. Belgium, para. 44.

  12. 12.

    ČOnka v. Belgium, para. 46.

  13. 13.

    Human Rights Committee, Hopu and Bessert v. France, Communication No. 549/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993/Rev.1, 29 July 1997.

  14. 14.

    Hopu and Bessert v. France, para. 10.3.

  15. 15.

    Human Rights Committee, Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada, Communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev.1, 5 May 1993.

  16. 16.

    “A State (…) may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one’s choice.” (Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada, para. 11.4).

  17. 17.

    Human Rights Committee, Coeriel and Aurik v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 453/1991, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991, 9 December 1994, para. 10.2, my emphasis.

  18. 18.

    Eur. Comm. H. R., G. and E. v. Norway (Appl. Nos. 9278/81 and 9415/81), 3 October 1983, D.R. 35, p. 30.

  19. 19.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (4th Section), Noack and others v. Germany (Appl. No. 46346/99), 25 May 2000 (admissibility decision), Rep. 2000-VI.

  20. 20.

    Eur. Ct. H. R., Buckley v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 20348/92), 25 September 1996, Rep. 1996-IV, p. 1271, para. 55.

  21. 21.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (Grand Chamber), Chapman v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 27238/95); Beard v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 24882/94), Coster v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 24882/94), Lee v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 25289/94), Jane Smith v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 25154/94).

  22. 22.

    Eur. Ct. H. R., Niemietz v. Germany (Appl. 13710/88), 16 December 1992, Serie A 251-B, p. 33, para. 29.

  23. 23.

    See in particular Eur. Ct H. R. (4th Section), Pretty v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 2346/02), 29 April 2002, Rep. 2002-III, para. 61 and Eur. Ct. H. R. (Grand Chamber), Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 28957/95), 11 July 2002, para. 90; Eur. Ct. H. R. (1st Section), Connors v. United Kingdom (Appl. No. 66746/01), 27 May 2004, para. 82.

  24. 24.

    Eur. Ct. H.R., Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of language in education in Belgium, 23 July 1968, Series A 6 (hereinafter: Belgian Linguistic case).

  25. 25.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (Grand Chamber), Cyprus v. Turkey (Appl. No. 25781/94), 10 May 2001, Rep. 2001-IV.

  26. 26.

    Cyprus v. Turkey, para. 278.

  27. 27.

    See also Eur. Comm. H. R., Cyprus v. Turkey (Appl. No. 25781/94), report of 4 June 1999, para. 478, my emphasis.

  28. 28.

    Advisory Opinion regarding Minority Schools in Albania, 6 April 1935, PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No 64, 1935.

  29. 29.

    Minority Schools in Albania, p. 19. The PCIJ also asserted that “there would be no true equality between a majority and a minority if the latter were deprived of its own institutions, and were consequently compelled to renounce that which constitutes the very essence of its being as a minority” (Minority Schools in Albania, p. 17).

  30. 30.

    Eur. Ct. H. R. (Grand Chamber), Thlimmenos v. Greece (Appl. No. 34369/97), 6 April 2000, para. 44.

  31. 31.

    Thlimmenos v. Greece, para. 47.

  32. 32.

    Thlimmenos v. Greece, para. 48.

  33. 33.

    See the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Pastor Ridruejo, Bonello, Tulkens, Straznicka, Lorenzen, Fiscbach and Casadevall.

  34. 34.

    Opened for signature in the Council of Europe in 1995, it entered into force on 1st February 1998.

  35. 35.

    Note that Article 1 of the Framework Convention on National Minorities states that “protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights (…)”.

  36. 36.

    Chapman v. United Kingdom, para. 93. The Court however adds that in its view the consensus does not seem sufficiently concrete to derive any guidance as to the conduct or standards which Contracting States consider desirable in any particular situation (para. 94).

  37. 37.

    Chapman v. United Kingdom, para. 96.

  38. 38.

    Increasing recognition of the idea that minority cultures should be respected also transpires from the evolution undergone by the notion of pluralism, which the Court considers as a defining criteria of a ‘democratic society’ pursuant to the Convention: in Gorzelik v. Poland, the Court makes clear that ‘pluralism’ does not only refer to the acceptance of a diversity of ideas and opinions; it “is also built on the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts.” (Eur. Ct. H. R. (Grand Chamber), Gorzelik and others v. Poland (Appl. No. 44158/98), 17 February 2004, para. 92).

Bibliography

  • Burchill, R. 2004. Minority rights. In Defining civil and political rights, the jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, ed. A. Conte, S. Davidson, and R. Burchill, 183–204. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, A., S. Davidson, and R. Burchill (eds.). 2004. Defining civil and political rights, the jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, O. 1997. Le droit au mode de vie tsigane devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme: Droits culturels, droits des minorités, discrimination positive. Obs. sous Cour eur. dr. h., arrêt Buckley c. Royaume-Uni du 25 Septembre 1996. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de L‘homme 29: 47–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichbaum, J.A. 1979. Towards an autonomy-based theory of constitutional privacy: Beyond the ideology of familial privacy. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14: 361–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1950. http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf.

  • Framework Convention on National Minorities. 1995. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm.

  • Gutwirth, S. 2002. Privacy and the information age. Trans. R. Casert. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrard, K. 2000. Devising an adequate system of minority protection – Individual human rights, minority rights and the right to self-determination. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR). 1966. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

  • Marko, J. 2003. Minority protection through jurisprudence in comparative perspective: An introduction. Journal of European Integration 25(3): 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, A. 2005. The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 5(1): 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentassuglia, G. 2002. Minorities in international law. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentassuglia, G. 2003. Minority issues as a challenge in the European court of human rights: A comparison with the case law of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. German Yearbook of International Law 46: 401–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D.A.J. 1979. Sexual autonomy and the constitutional right to privacy: A case study in human rights and the unwritten constitution. Hastings Law Journal 30: 957–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigaux, F. 1990. La protection de la vie privée et des autres biens de la personnalité. Bruxelles: Bruylant, LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenfeld, J. 1989. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 102: 737–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry, P., and M.A.M. Estébanez. 2004. Minority rights in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, P., and G.J.H. van Hoof. 1998. Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de philosophie du droit, Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu, 2, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Julie Ringelheim

Authors
  1. Julie Ringelheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Ringelheim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France

    Jean-Christophe Merle (Professor, Honorary Professor) (Professor, Honorary Professor)

  2. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, (Germany)

    Jean-Christophe Merle (Professor, Honorary Professor) (Professor, Honorary Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ringelheim, J. (2013). Integrating Cultural Concerns in the Interpretation of Traditional Individual Rights: Lessons from the International Human Rights Jurisprudence. In: Merle, JC. (eds) Spheres of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation