University of Southampton Faculty of Business, Law and Art Southampton Law School Volume 1 of 1 The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrument Doctrine: An Investigation into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation By Thomas Webber Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2016 1 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF BUSINESS, LAW AND ARTS Doctor of Philosophy The European Convention on Human Rights and the Living Instrument Doctrine: An Investigation into the Convention’s Constitutional Nature and Evolutive Interpretation By Thomas Webber Currently mired in controversy, the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention itself have come in for stern criticism from a diverse array of stakeholders. Of particular controversy is the Court’s utilisation of the Living instrument doctrine, which it first expressly recalled in its 1978 Tyrer v. UK decision. Confusion has continued to surround how this doctrine came about and its potential to allow the Strasbourg Judiciary to cross over the constitutional separation of judiciary and legislature. However, while the substantive idea of the Convention as a living instrument capable of evolving with European Society is legitimate, confusion still exists about how it operates and to what extent it might be used to alter existing Convention Standards. This study sets out that at the heart of this modern legitimacy crisis in the Convention system is a failed dialogical model of the Convention institutions. However, clearer explanations and a better understanding of appropriate roles of the various institutions and improved channels of dialogue may lead to a more accepted Convention system and act to calm some of the conflict surrounding the Convention today. After examination of various aspects of Convention law and practice the eventual argument is that the current crisis is largely one of failed dialogue between Convention stakeholders and is best address through an improved understanding of and discovery of European Consensus. 2 Contents Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................... 9 1.1 The Development of the ECHR ................................................................................................... 10 1.2 UK Criticism of the Court ............................................................................................................ 12 1.3 What is the Living Instrument Doctrine? .................................................................................... 22 1.4 Diverging approaches to Convention Interpretation .................................................................. 27 1.5 Controversy Surrounding the Living Instrument Doctrine .......................................................... 29 1.6 Dialogue and the ECHR ............................................................................................................... 34 1.7 The Purpose and Themes of this Study ....................................................................................... 36 1.7.1 Theme One: Where did the doctrine come from? (Genesis of the Doctrine in Convention Case Law) ...................................................................................................................................... 38 1.7.2 Theme Two: How the Doctrine works in practice, its limitations and the possibility of ‘(d)evolution’ ................................................................................................................................. 38 1.7.3 Theme Three: The living instrument doctrine and Strasbourg accountability .................... 40 1.8 Chapter by Chapter Overview of this Study ................................................................................ 42 1.8.1 Part One (chapters 2 and 3) - The Living Instrument and its Foundations .......................... 42 1.8.2 Part Two- Principles of Legitimacy and the Scope of the Living Instrument Doctrine ............ 44 1.8.3 Part Three Checks and Balances: State Control of the Convention ..................................... 47 1.8.4 Chapter 7- Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 49 1.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 2: The Nature of the Convention: An Ordinary Treaty or itself a Living Instrument? ............. 53 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 53 2.2 A Tale of Two Europes ................................................................................................................ 57 2.3 Similarities between the US Supreme Court and the ECtHR ...................................................... 65 2.4 The Founding of the Convention: Itself a Living and Evolving Instrument ................................. 74 2.5 The Evolving Mission of the Convention ..................................................................................... 77 2.6 Non Legislative Political Oversight and Influence of Convention Development ........................ 85 2.6.1 Judicial Selection .................................................................................................................. 86 2.6.2 Supervision of the Court’s Judgments ................................................................................. 87 2.6.3 Member State Withdrawal from the Convention ................................................................ 88 3 2.6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 89 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 3- The Genesis of the Living Instrument Doctrine .................................................................. 95 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 95 3.2 Pre-Tyrer Indications of the Living Instrument Nature of the Convention ................................. 98 3.3 Academic and Extra-Judicial Indications of the Living Instrument Doctrine ............................ 109 3.3.1 Dynamic Interpretation in Sir Francis Jacobs’ Leading Convention Textbook of 1975 ...... 109 3.3.2 Max Sorenson’s International Colloquy Speech in 1975 ................................................... 112 3.3.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 114 3.4 The Tyrer v. UK Litigation .......................................................................................................... 115 3.4.1 The Facts of the Tyrer case and Proceedings leading up to the Commission on Human Rights’ Report .............................................................................................................................. 116 3.4.2 Proceedings before the Commission on Human Rights..................................................... 116 3.4.3 The Pleadings before the Court of Human Rights in Tyrer: evolutive interpretation recognised ................................................................................................................................... 121 3.4.4 The Judgment of the Court ................................................................................................ 125 3.4.5 A Different View of the Convention?- Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s Dissent in Tyrer v. UK ..... 134 3.6 Marckx and Dudgeon: The classic Tyrer follow on cases .......................................................... 137 3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 144 Chapter 4- Evolutive Interpretation and its Limits.............................................................................. 149 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 149 4.2 Evolutive interpretation: The Court’s Use of Consensus and the Sources it considers ............ 151 4.2.1 Common Domestic Legislation and Common Practice amongst the Member States ....... 158 4.2.2 Mutual International Treaty Commitments and their Interpretation ................................... 168 4.2.3 Debates and Resolutions of Council of Europe Organs ......................................................... 174 4.2.4 Changing Social Norms and Perceptions in member States .............................................. 176 4.3 Criticisms of the Court’s Consensus Methodology ................................................................... 181 4.3.1 Lack of or unclear consensus reasoning by the Court ....................................................... 181 4.3.2 Unclear Quantum of Consensus Required for Evolution ................................................... 188 4.3.3 Inconsistent use of the living instrument terminology ...................................................... 192 4.3.4 Article 3 and the Failure of the Court’s Consensus Methodology ..................................... 199 4.4 Limitations on Evolutive Interpretation ...................................................................................