The Journal of Human Rights

The Journal of Human Rights

margin of appreciation applying in the light of legal schools and European Court of Human Rights case law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Hasan Savari 1
niloufar ragheb 2
1 Assistant Professor of International Law,Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD student of international law, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22096/hr.2023.554825.1482
Abstract
Codification, interpretation, enforcement, interpretation and modification, all are mainly affected by governments will. Margin of appreciation doctrine isn’t an exception in this respect. This doctrine provides certain flexibilities for implementation of the obligations of states under some circumstances. One would pose a question that in case the matter in question is one dealing with human rights how much and to what extent Margin of appreciation doctrine play its role under international human rights norms. This descriptive-analytical study examines the dimensions of the marginal doctrine and its effectiveness in the context of the principles of sovereignty and human rights and freedoms. In this regard, the said doctrine is analyzed in light of both the natural positivism schools to see its manifestation in the practice and view of the European Court of Human Rights. The results of the research show that, by determination of certain Criteria and restrictions for margin of appreciation doctrine as a product of legal positivism (voluntarism), European court of Human Rights attempts that considerations of the natural law school is being considered by states.
Keywords
Margin of appreciation
rule of states will
positivism law
natural law
evaluation criteria

Subjects

Bibliography
 

Daneshvar, Hajar. “Survey on legal positivism into the history of criticism of natural rights”, third international and national conference on management, accounting and law studies (2020). [In Persian]

Falsafi, Hedayatallah. “Codification and promotion of human rights in the international community”, Legal Research Journal 1, no. 16 & 17 (1996): 93-135. [In Persian]
Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad, and Ali Bahreini. “Human Being's Characteristics from the Perspective of the Writers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Tehran University Public Law Studies Quarterly 51, no.2 (Summer 2021): 519-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.285463.2082 [In Persian]
Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad. Human Rights in the Contemporary World, volume.1, Tehran: Shahre Danesh, 2011. [In Persian]

Habibi, Homayoon, and Soodeh Shamloo. “The Role of the ICJ in the Development of International Law”, Public Law Research 15, no.41 (autumn 2014): 71-114. [In Persian]

Javid, Mohammad Javad, and mostafa Shafizadeh Kholenjani. “Human Nature as a Criterion against Relativity of Human Rights”, Public Law Research 18, no. 52 (autumn 2016): 59-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2016.6791 [In Persian]
Javid, Mohammad Javad. The theory of relativity in citizenship rights: absoluteness-based analysis in natural rights. Tehran: Gerayesh, 2009. [In Persian]

Javidi, Mojtaba. “Natural Right or Positivist Right: Redefining the Concept of "Right" in Islamic Law”, Islamic law research, no.42 (2015): 115-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.30497/law.2016.1824 [In Persian]

Mohebi, Mohsen, and Esmaeil Samavi. “The Contribution of Precedent of the European Court of Human Rights to Dynamic Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties”, International legal journal 35, no.58 (spring and summer 2018): 7-30. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.22066/cilamag.2018.31672 [In Persian]

Najandi Manesh, Heybatullah, Seyyed Ali Husseini Azad, and Masoud Ahsan Nejad. “Sovereignty of States and International Law Documents: Impressing or Impressed?”, Mofid University International Journal of Human Rights 7, no.2 (2013): 27-50. [In Persian]

Parsa poor, Mohammad Bagher. “Natural law theory”, Theological philosophical researches 4, no.14 (2002): 141-151.  https://doi.org/10.22091/pfk.2002.422 [In Persian]

Rezaee, Sajad. “Limitations of sovereignty caused by the human rights documents of the United Nations (the third generation of human rights).” International Conference on Management and Humanities Researches in Iran course 6, (2020): 1-22. [In Persian]

Sharifi Tarazkoohi, Hossein, and Javad Mobini. “The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Public Law Research 16, no.44 (2014): 73-103. [In Persian]

Sharifi Tarazkoohi, Hossein. Human rights (values and realities). Tehran: Mizan, 2011. [In Persian]

Zamani, seyed ghasem, and Ayoub Abdi. “Margin of Appreciation in Religious Freedom in Light of the Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights.” Public Law Research 19, no.55 (winter 2017): 60-84. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2017.7778 [In Persian]

Zarneshan, Shahram, and Seyed Hossein Mirjafari. “Legal Positivism Place in the Organs of the United Nations.” Tehran University Public Law Studies Quarterly 48, no.4 (January 2019): 715-734. http://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2018.230249.1500 [In Persian]

Zolein, Parviz. Basics of public international law. Volume.1, Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1999. [In Persian]

Garner, Bryan A, and Henry Campbell Black. Black’s law dictionary. 8th edition, MN: Thomson West, 2004.

Gerards, Janneke . “Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review 3, no. 18 (2018): 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngy017.

Ghantous, Marie. “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE “MARGIN OF APPRECIATION” OR “MARGIN OF DISCRETION” DOCTRINE”, Revue québécoise de droit international (2018): 221- 241.
Greer, steven. The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2000.
Kratochvil, Jan. “The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 3, no. 29 (2011): 324-357.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411102900304.
Lepard, Brian D. customary International Law:a new theory with practical applications. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

McGoldrick, Dominic.  “A DEFENCE OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ITS APPLICATION BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1, no. 65 (2016): 21-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589315000457.

Mowbray, Alastair. “A Study of the Principle of Fair Balance in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Review 2, no. 10 (2010): 289-317.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngq006.

Council of Europe Treaty Series - no. 213. Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Strasbourg, 24.VI. 2013.
ECHR. Bumbeș v. Romania. no. 18079/15 (3 May 2022).
ECHR. Mediengruppe Österreich GmbH v. Austria. no. 37713/18 (26 April 2022).
ECHR. Lings v. Denmark. no. 15136/20 (12 April 2022).
ECHR. Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia. nos. 34591/19 and 42545/19 (26 October 2021).
ECHR. Vassiliou and Others v. Cyprus. no. 58699/15 (31 August 2021).
ECHR. Savenko and Others v. Russia. no. 13918/06 (14 September 2021).
ECHR. M.A. v. Denmark. no. 6697/18 (9 July 2021).
ECHR. Špadijer v. Montenegro. no. 31549/18 (9 November 2021).
ECHR. Polat v. Austria. no. 12886/16 (20 July 2021).
ECHR. mutatis mutandis, Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC]. no. 47621/13 (8 April 2021).
ECHR. Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria. nos. 50705/11,11340/12, 26221/12, 71694/12, and 44845/15 (13 July 2021).
ECHR. Gachechiladze v. Georgia. no. 2591/19 (22 July 2021).
ECHR. GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II). no. 38263/08 (21 January 2021).
ECHR. Šaltinytė v. Lithuania. no. 32934/19 (26 October 2021).
ECHR. Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC]. no. 17224/11 (27 June 2017).
ECHR. Morice v. France [GC]. no. 29369/10 (23 April 2015).
ECHR. Senigo Longue and Others v. France. no. 19113/09 (10 July 2014).
ECHR. Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC]. nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 (7 November 2013).
ECHR. Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC]). no. 48876/08 (22 April 2013).
ECHR. Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC]. no. 39954/08 (7 February 2012).
ECHR. Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal. no. 1529/08, § 47 (29 March 2011).
ECHR. Roland Dumas v. France. no. 34875/07 (15 July 2010).
ECHR. A, B and C v. Ireland. no. 25579/05 (16 December 2010).
ECHR. Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia. no. 36500/05 (13 October 2009).
ECHR. Stoll v. Switzerland. no. 69698/01 (10 December 2007).
ECHR. Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC]. nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02 (22 October 2007).
ECHR. Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC]. no. 44362/04 (4 December 2007).
ECHR. Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC]. no. 6339/05 (10 April 2007).
ECHR. Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC]. no. 32555/96 (19.10.2005).
ECHR. Vo v. France [GC]. no. 53924/00 (8 July 2004).
ECHR. Fretté v. France. no. 36515/97 (26 February 2002).
ECHR. Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC]. no. 28957/95 (11 July 2002).
ECHR. Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC]. no. 26682/95 (8 July 1999).
ECHR. Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece. no. 57/1997/841/1047 (10 July 1998).
ECHR. X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom. no. 75/1995/581/667 (22 april 1997).
ECHR. Golder v. the United Kingdom. Series A. no. 4451/70 (21 February 1975).
 
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
The Journal of Human Rights
Volume 18, Issue 1 - Serial Number 35
Spring and Summer 2023, Issue 35
June 2023
Pages 157-177