European human rights model, international human rights conventions, citizen, human right protection
The interpretation as well as the application of international human rights conventions has never been an easy task. Even though the international courts have been tasked with the responsibility of interpreting the international human right conventions, the function of trying to protect the human rights against possible state interference has not t been an easy one. This is despite the competence that such courts have. These international courts must always exercise great skills and expertise so as to be able to accommodate the expectations of the citizens on human right protection. This is in addition to taking into account the social settings which are ever changing and the will of the states.
[...] In these matters, the ECtHR has normally granted a very broad and wide autonomy which has opened ways for the state rules to prevail[12]. In some of the decisions that have been made based on the margin of appreciation, contractions have however arisen indicating that despite the benefits of the doctrine, it also raises challenges which in turn affect human right protection. In most cases, the doctrine of margin of appreciation has allowed the acceptance of state decisions on cases involving human rights[13]. This includes giving to autonomy to the states in sensitive matters like religion and morality right . [...]
[...] The court however paid attention to the debate that had taken place on that particular law. This is the view of the grand chamber was insufficient to distinguish the law form that which had been considered restrictive in the Arsalan case. The decision however showed how at times the application of the doctrine could be complicated. Margin of Appreciation and National Sovereignty The doctrine of appreciation has ensured that the courts do not give decisions which are unnecessary and which nay have far reaching implication on human rights protection[17]. [...]
[...] France and Dogru v. France. It has been argued that the autonomy of the has been maintained and the state decisions accepted with regard to human rights protection due to the lack of censuses on some issues that are associated with human rights[22]. However, through accepting all decisions made by states on the basis of the margin of application, the doctrine moves from being a tool of enhancing flexibility and promoting human right protection to a tool of empowering the states and ensuring that they remain sovereign. [...]
[...] What is required in the doctrine is some form of rationalization so that the cases that are brought before the ECtHR are not only accepted on the basis of lack of consensus. Bibliography Amos, M ‘Transplanting Human Rights Norms: The Case of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 36,pp. 386-407 Baker, A.2006, Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the ‘Ambit' under Article 14 ECHR', Modern Law Review, Vol No pp Covey, C. et al European Convention on Human Rights, OUP, London Connolly, M.2011, Discrimination Law, Sweet and Maxwell, London. Dahlab v. Switzerland Dogru v. France. [...]
[...] Though it has been said that the cases do not contravene the Convention, the individual rights of the involved parties are normally violated. The rulings is the Dahlab v. Switzerland which indicate that state's move to embrace active secularism at the expense of the rights of the party in question shows that the margin of application has at times been used by the state to promote state agenda and to ensure that it is maintained. France has been known to be a country that promotes secularism. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
