Reflections on Legal Reasoning in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

David Thor Björgvinsson*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Abstract

The article offers some reflections on legal reasoning in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It discusses the desirability of consistency in court practice, which, if not respected, may negatively affect public confidence in the judicial system. It is suggested that that the ECtHR is itself, nowadays, bypassing consistency and a dynamic approach to rights in favour of denying progressive interpretation by resorting to margin of appreciation and subsidiarity to favour judicial restraint. The paper does not prove this assertion, but rather introduces a hypothesis about a trend. A thorough analysis of the case law of the ECtHR over the last decade may possibly further substantiate this.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIus Gentium
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.
Pages251-268
Number of pages18
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Publication series

NameIus Gentium
Volume69
ISSN (Electronic)2214-9902

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature.

Other keywords

  • European Convention On Human Rights (ECHR)
  • European Court Of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Judicial Restraint
  • Practical Legal Consequences
  • Subsidiarity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reflections on Legal Reasoning in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this