Evolution and Limitations of the Application of the European Convention on Human Rights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63313/Law.8007Keywords:
Evolutionary Explanation, European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Restriction RulesAbstract
To adapt to societal development and the enhancement of human rights standards, the European Court of Human Rights has continuously updated the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights through an evolving interpretative approach. This doctrinal evolution has un-dergone significant practical development, including raising the standards of human rights pro-tection, aligning with the evolution of international law, and restricting individual rights of con-tracting states. In recent years, the emergence of new rights such as environmental rights has facilitated the construction of a fourth-generation human rights legal framework through pro-gressive interpretative application of the Convention in judicial practice. The European Court regards the Convention as a "living instrument," and based on social consensus and the Conven-tion’s purpose and spirit, it cautiously and gradually explores the application of evolving in-terpretation and its limitations, including adherence to the principle of necessity in a democratic society, maintaining judicial restraint, and clarifying the reasonable boundaries of treaty inter-pretation. The introduction of restriction principles contributes to the refinement of a dynamic interpretative mechanism, offering valuable insights for China in optimizing treaty interpreta-tion, aligning with international human rights norms, and safeguarding national interests.
References
[1] 吴卡. 条约演化解释方法的最新实践及其反思[J]. 法学家, 2012, (01): 157-165+180. DOI: 10. 16094/ j. cnki.1005-0221. 2012. 01. 014.
[2] 张乃根. 探析条约解释的若干问题: 国际法与国内法的视角[J]. 国际法研究, 2016, (05): 47-64+109.
[3] 韩逸畴. 时间流逝对条约解释的影响——论条约演变解释的兴起、适用及其限制[J]. 现代法学, 2015, 37 (06): 140-153.
[4] George Letsas. Strasbourg's Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer, European Journal of Inter-national Law, Vol. 21, p. 509-542.
[5] Yuliya C. Contract Interpretation in Investment Treaty Arbitration:A Theory of the Incidental Issue[M]. Brill | Nijhoff: 2022-01-18.
[6] Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, Eur. H.R., App. No.5856/ 72, 1978, para. 31.
[7] Steven Wheatley, Interpreting the ECHR in Light of the Increasingly High Standards Being Required by Human Rights: Insights from Social Ontology, 2024, p. 4.
[8] Steven Wheatley, Interpreting the ECHR in Light of the Increasingly High Standards Being Required by Human Rights: Insights from Social Ontology, 2024, p. 2.
[9] Article 31 General rule of interpretatio1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its ob-ject and purpose.
[10] Kanstantsin D. European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights[J]. German Law Journal, 2011, 12(10): 1730-1745.
[11] Goodwin v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R, App. No. 28957/95, Rep. 447, (2002), para. 85.
[12] Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties, Hague Yearbook of International Law, 2008, p.71.
[13] 陈瑛:论条约演进解释的适用完善[J]. 争议解决, 2023, 9(6): 2536-2543.
[14] Steven Wheatley, Interpreting the ECHR in Light of the Increasingly High Standards Being Required by Human Rights: Insights from Social Ontology, 2024, p. 22.
[15] R.B. v. Hungary, Eur. H.R., App. No. 64602/12, 2016, para.7.
[16] Anthony Burke and Rita Parker, Global Insecurity: Futures of Global Chaos and Governance, Palgrave, London, 2017, p. 293.
[17] Marc Willers KC and Acland Bryant, Groundbreaking Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Swiss Climate Justice Case, The Law Society of Northern Ireland, 2024, p.15
[18] López Ostra v. Spain, Eur. Ct. H. R., App. No.16798/90, 1994, paras. 9,12 ; Fadeyeva v. Russia , Eur. Ct. H. R., App. No. 55723/00, 2005, para. 9.
[19] Rees v. Unied Kingdom, Eur. H.R., App. No.9532/81, 1986, paras. 43, 44.
[20] Vo. v. France, Eur. Ct. H. R., 2004-VIII, paras. 107-09.
[21] S.A.S.v. France, Eur. H.R., App. No. 43835/11, 2014, paras.119-122.
[22] Tysiac v. Poland, Eur. Ct. H. R., App. No. 5410/03, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 20 March 2007.
[23] Jeffrey A. Brauch,The Human Rights Movement and the Prevention of Evil: The Need to Look Inward as Well as OutNeed to Look Inward as Well as Out, 2019, p. 39.
[24] Jeffrey A. Brauch,The Human Rights Movement and the Prevention of Evil: The Need to Look Inward as Well as OutNeed to Look Inward as Well as Out, 2019, p. 46.
[25] Gerald Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, Grotius Publications, 1986, p. 49.
[26] 邢爱芬.条约演化解释的适用与发展研究——以欧洲人权法院为例[J].中国政法大学学学报,2020,(02): p. 167.
[27] 范继增. 欧洲人权法院适用比例原则的功能与逻辑[J]. 欧洲研究, 2015, 33(05): 101-116+7.
[28] 邢爱芬. 条约演化解释的适用与发展研究——以欧洲人权法院为例[J]. 中国政法大学学学报,2020,(02):158-170+209.
[29] 毛俊响. 欧洲人权法院关于在公共场所穿戴蒙面服饰的最新法理——基于“S.A.S.诉法国”案的分析[J]. 欧洲研究, 2017, 35(01): 52-69+6.
[30] 何志鹏. 新时代中国国际法理论的发展[J]. 中国法学, 2023, (01): 283-304. DOI: 10. 14111/j. cnki. zgfx. 2023. 01. 015.
[31] 张卫彬. 条约演进解释的理据、模式及规制路径[J]. 法学, 2024, (06): 159-175.
[32] Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Eur. Ct. H. R., App. No. 30141/04, 2010, para. 46.
[33] 毛俊响, 郭敏. 欧洲人权法院“活的文件”判例法的发展、性质及出路[J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 27(05) : 65-78.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by author(s) and Erytis Publishing Limited.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.