Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation that the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has developed in its case law has givenrise to considerable criticism. In this article I draw a distinctionbetween two different ways in which the Court has used the doctrine.The first one is in cases where the Court has to decide whethera particular interference with a Convention freedom is justified.In answering that question, the Court often uses the label ‘marginof appreciation’ without drawing on a substantive theoryof rights that can justify the conclusion reached. The seconduse appears in cases where the Court refrains explicitly fromemploying a substantive test of human rights review on the basisthat there is no consensus among Contracting States on the legalissue before it. My aim is to highlight the principles thatcan be used to justify each use of the doctrine, by locatinghuman rights within broader issues in moral and political philosophy.Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between reason-blockingand interest-based theories of rights as well as on the natureof the duties of the European Court, as a matter of internationalhuman rights law.     

Taking Care of Strasbourg: The Status of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Kosovo’s Domestic Legal System

This paper addresses the position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law in Kosovo’s domestic legal order. To begin with, it reviews the background of the issue of human rights in Kosovo highlighting its distinct position and perspective. This article then analyses the position held by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols in Kosovo’s legal order while also addressing the ECHR’s constitutionalization, its direct effect and the constitutional review on basis of it. The paper then examines whether the case-law of the ECtHR is binding in Kosovo, whether it is directly effective, and whether Kosovo’s Constitutional Court can use it as a ground in the conduct of constitutional reviews. This paper argues that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR both hold a privileged status under Kosovo’s constitutional law, despite Kosovo not being a party to the ECHR and, therefore, having no international liability to implement the ECHR. In addition, the paper offers certain arguments regarding the relative positions of the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR within the current practice of Kosovo’s judicial system. This paper concludes with the argument that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR hold a privileged status in the context of Kosovo’s domestic legal order—one which could serve as a precedent in respecting human rights and freedoms.     

Balancing Between Human Rights Assumptions and Actual Fundamental Human Rights Safeguards in Building an Area of Freedom,Security and Justice: a Cosmopolitan Perspective

Rhetoric often claims that the European Union (EU), in issues related to Justice and Home Affairs, has to be united in its diversity. As such, the asylum and judicial systems of the Member States are initially perceived as equally good. By applying the cosmopolitan theory on two fields of interstate cooperation, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the article explores how cosmopolitan the EU is in these fields, with a specific focus on material detention conditions. For cosmopolitanism to work, it has to be grounded in commonly shared norms, which enable the EU to regulate its dealings with the otherness of the Member States. The crucial role of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in placing boundaries on the equal goodness of the Member States’ asylum and judicial systems is analysed. This judicial reality in which cosmopolitan norms are established and protected is discussed, together with the political realities dominating policy debates in order to build an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.     

Polluting Environment, Polluting Constitution: Is a 'Polluted' Constitution Worse than a Polluted Environment?

The Indian Supreme Court has been praised as one of the mostsocially active courts in the world, especially so in the environmentalfield. Yet it is arguable that many of the benefits claimedfor judicial involvement are far from real. Three phases ofacti­vism are identified. In the 1970s, the Court developedthe concept of environmental rights based on ensuring that thedirective principles of state policy and the funda­mentalright to life contained the Constitution worked in mutual support.This was followed by a period when the Court extended liabilityprinciples. The most recent and most controversial phase hasinvolved the Court increasingly acting in an exec­utivefunction and effectively both making and implementing policies.The Court’s enthusiasm in environmental matters has nowdented India’s institutional balance. By being preparedto judicialise all problems of life into problems of law, theCourt has undermined the strength of citizens to engage collectivelywith institutions of the State—the Court should now withdrawfrom its self-imposed alchemist role.     

证券交易所自律管理行为的司法审查标准——评叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案

现代公共管理不再由政府部门和法定机构大权独揽,未经公法授权的私人机构亦能占据一席之地。一些机构的公法职权与私法职权界限日渐模糊,导致难以判断这类机构实施的行为究竟属于公法范畴还是私法范畴。新加坡证券交易所即属于此种情况的机构。叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案是一个具有里程碑意义的案件,新加坡高等法院通过此案确立了司法审查中的渊源标准与实质标准。即使决策机构未经公法授权,但只要该机构在事实层面上履行了公共职能,其决策就可能需要受到司法审查。叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案中确立的司法审查标准,对于讨论我国证券交易所自律管理行为的行政可诉性问题具有借鉴意义。     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).     

Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes

This article analyses the case law on ombudsman schemes in the UK, with the purpose of identifying some of the key trends that underpin this branch of law pre-the first Supreme Court decision in this area, JR55 v Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. While the law on ombudsman schemes remains based on legislation and the various grounds of administrative law available in judicial review, distinct bespoke principles have also been relied upon. These principles are beginning to provide consistent guidance on how the law should be used and interpreted in cases involving an ombudsman scheme. One task of the Supreme Court in JR55 will be to confirm these principles, or rationalize any departure from them.     

On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide

On the face of it the 1948 Convention on Genocide appears tobe a treaty that on the one hand obliges contracting statesto criminalize and punish genocide in their domestic legal systemsand, on the other, arranges for interstate judicial cooperationfor the repression of genocide. The International Court of Justice(ICJ), in the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, has instead held thatthe Convention, in addition to providing for the criminal liabilityof individuals, also imposes on contracting states as internationalsubjects a set of obligations (to refrain from engaging in genocide,to prevent and punish the crime, and also to refrain for allthose categories of conduct enumerated in Article III: conspiracy,incitement, attempt, complicity). This approach raises two questions:(i) is it warranted so to broaden states' responsibility? (ii)when applying such Article III categories to state responsibility,should an international court such as the ICJ that pronounceson interstate disputes rely upon criminal law categories toestablish whether a state incurs responsibility for conspiracy,complicity, and so on? Or should it instead forge autonomouslegal categories better suited to state responsibility? Theauthor sets forth doubts about whether it is appropriate totranspose criminal law categories to the corpus of internationallaw of state responsibility. In particular, his misgivings relateto the category of ‘state complicity in genocide’as set out by the Court: once the Court decided to transplantthis criminal law category to state responsibility, arguablyit should have relied upon the rigorous concept of complicity,as derived by international criminal courts from case law andthe relevant practice of states, rather than apply a notionthat finds no basis in international criminal law, in comparativecriminal law or in state practice.     

Components of Legal Concepts: Quality of Law,Evaluative Judgement,and Metaphorical Framing of Article 8 ECHR

This paper looks at the use of metaphor and its effect on the interpretation of the ‘quality of law’ in Art. 8 cases of the European Court of Human Rights. It demonstrates the Court's reproduction of specific metaphorical frames ‐ a finding consistent with the use of metaphor in judgment experiments in cognitive linguistics. The Court employs metaphors conceptually coherent with those used in their cited precedent, in their representation of the successful pleadings within their judgments and insists (implicitly) on different metaphors in dissent. This paper argues that the use of congruent metaphors may be indicative of metaphor as a contributing factor in how judges reason. In the least, it is a significantly understudied phenomenon and this paper provides evidence for the salience of its approach for understanding judicial reasoning.     

Proof of use, continuity of functions in inter partes proceedings, and three-dimensional marks: Europe in review

Legal context: This article reviews the recent CFI and ECJ case law on proofof use and continuity of functions in the context of oppositionproceedings as well as the strict approach to three-dimensionalmarks. Key points: Unlike the situation in many common law jurisdictions, the Communitytrade mark regime is not a use-based system. Nevertheless, oncea mark has been registered for more than five years, the rightsthat it seeks to protect may only be enforceable to the extentthat the sign has been used for the goods and services it covers.In the context of opposition proceedings, applicants may callfor evidence that the opponent has actually used the mark onwhich the opposition is based. The concept of ‘genuineuse’ - which must be demonstrated in order to show thata mark has actually been used - has come before the Court ofJustice for further clarification. Where proof of use is adducedfor the first time before the Board of Appeal, the Court ofFirst Instance believes that, because of the principle of thecontinuity of functions, it is not out of time. That analysishas not been supported by the recent opinion of Advocate GeneralSharpston in the Arcol case and there is now considerable uncertaintypending a final pronouncement on the issue by the Court of Justice.In the meantime, the case law from Luxembourg continues to insiston three dimensional marks being like any other type of mark,whilst taking a very strict approach to the registrability ofsuch signs. Practical significance: The evidence of use to be adduced need not be quantatively significantand the ‘hurdle to be jumped’ is somewhat ‘lower’than was previously the case. Whether negligent representativesmay continue to use the continuity of functions principle tojustify recouping missed deadlines on appeal (particularly,when presenting proof of use), remains to be seen. However,what is certain is that three-dimensional marks will continueto be difficult to register.     

Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers

Organisations and scholars have recently drawn attention towhat they call a modern form of slavery, ‘domestic slavery’.Domestic workers in Europe and elsewhere live and work in appallingconditions and are vulnerable to abuse. This article describesthe problem, presents the relevant legal instruments and analysesa decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Siliadin vFrance, where France was found in breach of the prohibitionof slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The paper examines thegrowing interaction between international labour law and internationalhuman rights law. It argues that the decision in Siliadin andits legal implications constitute a positive first step towardsaddressing the problem of the coercion and vulnerability ofmigrant domestic workers.     

RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Empowering Tribunals to Enforce the Human Rights Act 1998

In RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – follow-on litigation from the high-profile bedroom tax cases – the Supreme Court handed down a judgment which has significant implications for social security law, the interpretation of the Human Rights Act, the tribunals system, the judicial control of delegated legislation, and access to justice. Central, however, was the issue of the enforceability of human rights. We argue that the Supreme Court was not only justified in its interpretation of the Human Rights Act but that it has made the protections of the Act more easily enforceable.     

Waldron, Waluchow and the Merits of Constitutionalism

In this article, I critically evaluate the positions of ProfessorsJeremy Waldron and W.J. Waluchow on the right-based merits ofentrenched constitutions and strong judicial review. I supportWaluchow in arguing that (i) prohibitions on the constitutionalentrenchment of rights and resultant prohibitions of strongjudicial review may be only superficially fair or democratic,since fair procedure alone can neither eliminate pre-existinginequalities nor ultimately take the autonomy vital to self-governanceseriously (whether individual or collective). Secondly, (ii)if deep dissensus fails to exist on all substantive mattersof rights, the constitutional entrenchment of rights combinedwith strong judicial review can indeed be achieved fairly. Ithen propose that (iii) the anti-constitutionalist concern aboutbeing governed by the ‘dead hand of the past’ isself-refuting, for the alternative is simply another constrainton autonomy. While this is largely consistent with Waluchow'sposition vis-à-vis Waldron's majoritarianism, I end byexpressing serious concerns regarding whether the common law(and the ‘constitutional morality’ that Waluchowclaims can be derived from it) can act as a sufficiently robustbasis for the protection of liberal and egalitarian rights.     

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the ICC

Like many states, Iran has an ambivalent position towards theStatute of the International Criminal Court (‘Statute’),ranging from enthusiastic support to open scepticism. On accountof its experience in the Iraq–Iran war, Iran is interestedin exploring the Court's jurisdiction over aggression and warcrimes; in addition, it sees the possible adoption of provisionson the crime of aggression as a tool against greater powers’domination. Major issues for Iran are, however, some of thepenalties provided for under Iranian criminal law, includingcapital punishment as well as whipping, stoning and the sectioningof limbs as well as the treatment of minorities and gender.Another problem may be the presence of non-Muslim Judges atthe Court, who, it is feared, may not be familiar with and sensitiveto Shari’a principles; in addition, under theologicalprinciples, Muslims may not be judged by non-Muslim Judges.This question paradoxically constitutes an incentive for Iranto consider ratification of the Statute. So far, Iran has signedbut not ratified the Statute. Studies are under way with a viewto presenting the Statute to Parliament for ratification. However,problems of conflict between some provisions of the Statuteand the principles of Shari’a law may arise if the Statuteis ratified.     

Money for nothing and your MP3s for free

The judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (‘the Court’)in Universal Music is the first judicial pronouncement in Australiaon the legality of website operators who provide hyperlinksto remote websites to allow ‘internauts’ (web users)to download MP3 music files and the liability of internet serviceproviders (ISPs) and their employees for authorizing that infringementunder Australian copyright law.     

法官视角中的能动司法

能动司法是司法创造力的体现。在美国,这种司法能动的突出表现形式是司法审查权,通过多年的案例发展,美国已经形成了较为完备的司法审查体制。在英国,至今法院尚无对立法的审查权。但在英美法系国家,由于有判例法传统,法官的司法能动性相对较大,在案件审理中,区分相似案件事实和不断发展法律规则是法官司法技术的重要组成部分。英美法系的司法能动对我国司法实践具有积极的借鉴意义。在我国,司法能动在审判领域的主要表现形式是最高法院司法解释、个案法官法律论证,其主线是政策考量与法律考量,也可称之为社会效果考量与法律效果考量。     

死刑控制与最高人民法院的功能定位

死刑控制与最高人民法院的关系是社会各界关注的热点问题。分析表明,2007年以来最高人民法院全面收回死刑复核权,对其自身造成了一系列影响;最高人民法院的内部结构与实际功能,由此发生了深刻变化。这些变化并不完全符合现代法治理念下最高人民法院的功能定位。未来应该在考虑政治与社会条件的基础上,有步骤地改造最高人民法院在死刑控制方面的工作职能与方式,以减轻最高人民法院不必要的工作负担与资源消耗,促进最高人民法院将更多的资源用于应对更加宏观、复杂的问题。     

最高人民法院关于无效行政行为的探索

最高人民法院从司法审查引发出对无效行政行为制度的探索,虽没有使用“自始没有任何法律效力”和“无效”等概念,却在民事诉讼领域形成了有关基础行为的构成要件,在对行政行为的司法审查中形成了重大明显瑕疵的类型化和明显性判断标准,并形成了排除具有重大明显瑕疵行政行为公定力、相对人拘束力和司法强制执行力的无效行政行为制度雏形,为我国今后立法积累了丰富的素材。从最高人民法院的探索轨迹及其重大明显瑕疵的类型化,可以发现无效行政行为规则的鲜明中国特色,司法的制度生成意义和生成机制。     

Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?

Three recent International Court of Justice decisions –Oil Platforms, Avena and Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory– highlight the uncertain status of the margin of appreciationdoctrine in the Court’s jurisprudence. The purpose ofthis article is to evaluate, in the light of contemporary practiceof other courts, the current status under international lawof the margin of appreciation doctrine, which encourages internationalcourts to exercise restraint and flexibility when reviewingthe decisions of national authorities, and to offer preliminaryguidelines for future application. The article also discussesa variety of policy arguments concerning the legitimacy andeffectiveness of international courts, which can be raised insupport of the development of a general margin of appreciationdoctrine with relation to some categories of international lawnorms governing state conduct, and it examines potential criticism.Eventually, it argues that the same considerations which haveled to the creation of ‘margin of appreciation type’doctrines in the domestic law of many states and in the contextof specific international regimes (for instance, the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights) also support the introduction ofthe doctrine into general international law. The position ofthe ICJ towards the application of the doctrine therefore meritsreconsideration.     

The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights

This article discusses the creative role adopted by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the face of situations not envisagedby the drafters of the European Convention in the late 1940s,resulting from the inevitable evolution of societies and theirchanging ethical standards. Although the Vienna Convention onthe Law of Treaties 1969 is a constant source of inspirationto the Court for the interpretation of the Convention, the articlepoints to two new techniques of interpretation adopted by theCourt, namely the ‘living instrument’ doctrine andthe ‘practical and effective’ doctrine. An attemptis made to highlight the advantages and the weaknesses of bothof these innovative interpretational approaches. Additionally,an assessment is made of how the Court has responded to present-daydemands and maintained a balance between judicial creativityand respect for the role of member States as the key policy-makersin determining the scope of rights guaranteed by the Convention.