The term 'margin of appreciation' has been used for some time to refer to the room for manoeuvre that the Strasbourg institutions are prepared to accord national authorities in fulfilling some of their principal obligations under the European Convention for Human Rights. This document proposes how the meaning of the term may be given greater clarity, coherence and consistency.

5.2.3. Burden of Proof

The margin of appreciation is a judicial doctrine whereby international courts allow states to have a measure of diversity in their interpretation of human rights treaty obligations. The doctrine is at the heart of some of the most important international human rights decisions. Does it undermine the universality of human rights? How should judges decide whether to give this margin of appreciation to states? How can lawyers make best use of arguments for or against the margin of appreciation? This book answers these questions, and broadens the discussion on the margin of appreciation by including material beyond the ECHR system. It provides a comprehensive justification of the doctrine, and ALLFSCA14I the key cases affecting the doctrine in practice. Part One provides a systematic defence of the margin of appreciation doctrine in international human rights law. Drawing on the philosophy of practical reasoning the book argues that the margin of appreciation is a doctrine of judicial deference and is a common and appropriate feature of adjudication. The book argues that the margin of appreciation doctrine prevents courts from imposing unhelpful uniformity, whilst allowing decisions to be consistent with the universality of human rights. Part Two considers the key case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee, documenting the margin of appreciation in practice. The analysis uniquely takes a broad look at the factors affecting the margin of appreciation. Part Three explores how the margin of appreciation operates in the judicial decision-making process, reconceptualising the proportionality assessment and explaining how the nature of the right and the type of case affect the courts' reasoning.

The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence is the first full-length monograph to treat this subject, which is of central importance to the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will enrich the understanding and appreciation of judges, advocates, civil servants, scholars, researchers, students, and indeed of anyone whose life and work is affected by national and international human rights adjudication. This thorough and learned analysis synthesizes the work of the Strasbourg judicial organs, proceeding in the light of the ongoing debates on the appropriate place of the margin doctrine in the Strasbourg jurisprudence. The author's rich conclusions add texture and perspective to the future judicial and scholarly dialogues which will no doubt continue to surround this subject matter. The text is eminently readable, written in a clear and precise style to be appreciated by the novice and specialist alike. The newcomer to human rights and to the Convention will find it an inviting introduction to complex material; the expert will gain new and expanded insights into the development of the case law rarely to be found in this breadth and depth.

In Consensus-Based Interpretation of Regional Human Rights Treaties Francisco Pascual-Vives examines the central role played by the notion of consensus in the case law of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. As many other international courts and tribunals do, both regional human rights courts resort to this concept while undertaking an evolutive interpretation of the Rome Convention and the Pact of San José, respectively. The role exerted by the notion of consensus in this framework can be used not only to understand the evolving character of the rights and freedoms recognized by these international treaties, but also to reaffirm the international nature of these regional human rights courts.

This book presents a comprehensive review of fundamental rights issues that are currently in the spotlight. The first part explores why the question of whether or not fundamental rights have horizontal effect is a topic of endless debate. The second part focuses on human rights and the rule of law. It begins by arguing that the hitherto valid model of the rule of law is now outdated, and then goes on to outline the importance of the judicial dimension in countering threats to the independence of the judiciary. Lastly, the third part addresses a classic issue in the field of human rights: states’ margin of appreciation, highlighting two aspects: (i) the elements used by the ECJ to determine the scope of the margin of appreciation, which varies depending on the subject matter, the nature of the right in question, as well as the severity and the purpose of the interference; and (ii) the margin of appreciation enjoyed by national courts when interpreting the law. Exploring current issues concerning a topic of eternal interest, the book will appeal to scholars and practitioners alike. Written by formidable intellectual talents, committed to the study of fundamental rights, it rigorously analyses the most recent judgments of both the ECJ and the ECHR.

The European Court of Justice has been celebrated as a central force in the creation and deepening of the EU internal market. Yet, it has also been criticized for engaging in judicial activism, restricting national regulatory autonomy, and taking away the powers of Member State institutions. In recent years, the Court appears to afford greater deference to domestic actors in free movement cases. Europe's Passive Virtues explores the scope of and reasons for this phenomenon. It enquires into the decision-making latitude given to the Member States through two doctrines: the margin of appreciation and decentralized judicial review. At the heart of the book lies an original empirical study of the European Court's free movement jurisprudence from 1974 to 2013. The analysis examines how frequently and under which circumstances the Court defers to national authorities. The results suggest that free movement law has substantially changed over the past four decades. The Court is leaving a growing range of decisions in the hands of national law-makers and judges, a trend that affects the level of scrutiny applied to Member State action, the division of powers between the European and national judiciary, and ultimately the nature of the internal market. The book argues that these new-found 'passive virtues' are linked to a series of broader political, constitutional, and institutional developments that have taken place in the EU.

International courts use two key methodologies to determine the degree of deference granted to states in their implementation of international obligations: the standard of review and margin of appreciation. This book investigates how these doctrines are applied in international courts, analysing where their approaches converge and diverge.

The rule of law.

Confusion about the differences between the Council of Europe (the parent body of the European Court of Human Rights) and the European Union is commonplace amongst the general public. It even affects some lawyers, jurists, social scientists and students. This book will enable the reader to distinguish clearly between those human rights norms which originate in the Council of Europe and those which derive from the EU, vital for anyone interested in human rights in Europe and in the UK as it prepares to leave the EU. The main achievements of relevant institutions include securing minimum standards across the continent as they deal with increasing expansion, complexity, multidimensionality, and interpenetration of their human rights activities. The authors also identify the central challenges, particularly for the UK in the post-Brexit era, where the components of each system need to be carefully distinguished and disentangled.