|
|
xv | |
|
Table of Treaties and Legislation |
|
|
xxi | |
|
|
xxiv | |
|
|
1 | (14) |
|
1 The margin of appreciation in the ECtHR, IACtHR, and the UN HRC |
|
|
3 | (3) |
|
|
6 | (4) |
|
|
10 | (5) |
|
PART I THEORY: CONCEPTUALIZING AND JUSTIFYING THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION |
|
|
15 | (52) |
|
2 Deference: Reasoning Differendy on the Basis of External Factors |
|
|
17 | (21) |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
2 Assigning weight differently on the basis of external factors |
|
|
18 | (3) |
|
3 Deference on the basis of external factors |
|
|
21 | (3) |
|
4 Types of reason for deference |
|
|
24 | (2) |
|
a Relationships and comity |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
b Epistemic limitations and expertise |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
5 Cases that demonstrate this approach in practice |
|
|
26 | (11) |
|
a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) |
|
|
27 | (4) |
|
b Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) |
|
|
31 | (3) |
|
c United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) |
|
|
34 | (3) |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
3 Different Approaches to Deference in International Human Rights Law |
|
|
38 | (29) |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
2 The margin of appreciation and relativism about human rights |
|
|
40 | (10) |
|
a The meaning of universality in moral discourse |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
b Moral universality and the margin of appreciation |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
c Legal rights that implement moral rights |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
d Legal orders and comparisons |
|
|
45 | (2) |
|
e The margin of appreciation and relativism in practice |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
|
50 | (8) |
|
a The `one right answer' thesis |
|
|
50 | (3) |
|
b Harmonization and integration |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
|
55 | (2) |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
4 Justifying the margin of appreciation |
|
|
58 | (8) |
|
a The Tribunals as forums for the contestation of sovereignty |
|
|
58 | (3) |
|
b Deference and subsidiarity |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
d The practice of the Tribunals |
|
|
63 | (2) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
PART II PRACTICE: FACTORS AFFECTING THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION |
|
|
67 | (108) |
|
4 Democracy and Participation |
|
|
69 | (34) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
2 Theories of judicial review and the justification of the margin of appreciation for democratic reasons |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
3 The contribution of the Tribunals to theories of democracy in international law |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
4 Democratic legitimacy as an external factor for the margin of appreciation in practice |
|
|
75 | (8) |
|
a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) |
|
|
75 | (4) |
|
b Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
c United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
d Giving state legislatures time to change the law |
|
|
81 | (2) |
|
5 Cases in which democratic legitimacy is a factor in favour of granting the state a margin of appreciation |
|
|
83 | (7) |
|
a Conflicting private rights: testing the choice of the legislature |
|
|
83 | (3) |
|
b Conflicting personal-public freedoms: questions of moral or political controversy |
|
|
86 | (4) |
|
6 Cases in which democratic legitimacy issues heighten scrutiny |
|
|
90 | (11) |
|
a Democratic rights: the example of electoral participation |
|
|
90 | (3) |
|
b Minorities and vulnerable groups |
|
|
93 | (3) |
|
c A lack of societal/parliamentary debate |
|
|
96 | (2) |
|
d The application of legal formulae where the provisions are too broad-brush |
|
|
98 | (2) |
|
e Other rule of law concerns |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
|
101 | (2) |
|
5 Treaty Interpretation, Current State Practice, and Other International Law Influences on the Practice of Deference |
|
|
103 | (42) |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
2 State consent and the legality of international agreements |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
3 Treaty interpretation: Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and the special status of human rights treaties |
|
|
106 | (7) |
|
a Original intent or evolutive interpretation |
|
|
108 | (2) |
|
b Treaty provisions with autonomous meanings |
|
|
110 | (2) |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
4 Other approaches to the role of current state practice |
|
|
113 | (3) |
|
5 Current state practice as an external factor affecting the margin of appreciation in practice |
|
|
116 | (14) |
|
a Lack of consensus increases deference |
|
|
116 | (4) |
|
b Current state practice in the applicant's favour heightens scrutiny |
|
|
120 | (4) |
|
c Current state practice in the state's favour increases deference |
|
|
124 | (3) |
|
d Current state practice is not calculated with precision |
|
|
127 | (3) |
|
6 Deference to international norms, institutions, and organizations |
|
|
130 | (13) |
|
a Decisions of other international human rights tribunals |
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
b The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) |
|
|
135 | (2) |
|
c Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) |
|
|
137 | (4) |
|
d Other international law norms |
|
|
141 | (2) |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
6 Expertise and Competence |
|
|
145 | (30) |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
2 Epistemology, expertise, and judicial responsibility |
|
|
146 | (2) |
|
3 Expertise as a factor for the margin of appreciation in practice |
|
|
148 | (5) |
|
a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) |
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
b Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) |
|
|
150 | (2) |
|
c United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
4 Types of expertise where there are commonly stronger grounds for a margin of appreciation |
|
|
153 | (14) |
|
|
153 | (6) |
|
|
159 | (3) |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
e Policing and civil service |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
|
164 | (3) |
|
5 Heightened scrutiny where the Tribunals have expertise |
|
|
167 | (7) |
|
|
167 | (4) |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
6 Conclusion: expertise and subsidiarity |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
PART III THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION: THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AND PROPORTIONALITY |
|
|
175 | (51) |
|
7 Proportionality: Determining Rights |
|
|
177 | (23) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
2 The origins of proportionality |
|
|
178 | (3) |
|
3 Theories of rights: balancing, trumps, and human rights determinations |
|
|
181 | (11) |
|
a Interest-based theories |
|
|
182 | (7) |
|
b Rights as trumps (reason-blocking theories) |
|
|
189 | (3) |
|
4 The margin of appreciation and proportionality in human rights adjudication |
|
|
192 | (6) |
|
a The conceptual connection between the margin of appreciation and proportionality |
|
|
194 | (2) |
|
b Cases that demonstrate the connection between the margin of appreciation and proportionality |
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
5 Conclusion: the structure of decision-making in human rights law |
|
|
198 | (2) |
|
8 Nature of the Right and Type of Case |
|
|
200 | (19) |
|
|
200 | (1) |
|
2 How the `nature of the right' or `type of case' may affect the margin of appreciation or proportionality |
|
|
201 | (3) |
|
3 The nature of the right |
|
|
204 | (12) |
|
a Absolute rights: life and freedom from torture |
|
|
204 | (6) |
|
b Strong rights: fair trial, liberty, and derogations |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
c Qualified rights: privacy, and freedoms of religion, association, speech, and non-discrimination |
|
|
211 | (4) |
|
d Weak rights: property, education, and free elections |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
|
217 | (2) |
|
|
219 | (7) |
Bibliography |
|
226 | (5) |
Index |
|
231 | |