Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


A Misguided Utopia: The Ambiguity of the European Court of Human Rights

11/5/2024

0 Comments

 
​Written by Samantha Graines, Edited by Nicole Muravksy

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court that enforces the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), serving as the primary judicial mechanism for protecting human rights across Europe. It receives applications from individuals, groups, or states alleging human rights violations by member states, orders remedies if violations are found, and puts out rulings that have led to important legal reforms. While the European system for protecting human rights may appear to be a model framework for protecting human rights, in reality, its decision-making processes and jurisprudence are fraught with ambiguity. This ambiguity undermines the consistency and fairness of its rulings, often leaving essential human rights vulnerable to subjective interpretations.
One pillar of both international human rights and the ECHR is the right of freedom of expression. Article 10 of the ECHR is concerned with the matter of freedom of expression and states: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.” The phrasing in the clause “duties and responsibilities” and “necessary in a democratic society” highlight the ambiguous nature of the ECHR. The verbiage implies a certain level of ambiguity that poses a large challenge in consistently and fairly interpreting what is meant in actuality. Each individual, each lawyer, and each juror, respectively, has a different way in which one views one’s “duties and responsibilities” and what’s “necessary in a democratic society.” Society is composed of diverse individuals, each who can interpret this article and develop an understanding of how to utilize one’s rights differently. Seeing how a foundation of the ECHR is rooted in ambiguity, it is only natural to suppose that the ECtHR will operate with such lack of clarity as well. 

Furthermore, the legal doctrine of “margin of appreciation” also welcomes much ambiguity into the ECtHR. The margin of appreciation grants member states a certain margin to create their own policies, and ECtHR interferes when a member state has overstepped its margin of appreciation. The ambiguity inherent in ECtHR’s use of the "margin of appreciation" doctrine is epitomized in the 1994 case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria; this case focussed on the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of religious sensibilities. This case represents how the system of human rights protection is flawed when the ECtHR has to decide which right they deem more important: religion or expression.

Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria involved the seizure and confiscation of a film deemed blasphemous and offensive to the religious beliefs of the Catholic majority in Austria. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Austria, granting the government a wide margin of appreciation in restricting the film's expression to protect public morality and the religious sensibilities of the population [5].
The ECtHR granted Austria a wide "margin of appreciation" in determining the necessity of seizing an allegedly blasphemous film, demonstrating the flexibility and ambiguity the Court allows national authorities in interpreting the ECHR. Additionally, the Court's willingness to prioritize the protection of public morality and religious sensibilities over freedom of expression highlights the subjective, context-dependent nature of the Court's decision as well as the Court's ambiguity in determining when to defer to national contexts versus applying uniform human rights standards. This outcome also contrasts with the Court's earlier Handyside v. UK decision, suggesting a lack of clear, consistently applied principles in the ECtHR's jurisprudence [3]. 

Besides, the principle of leaving the margin of appreciation up to the national legislators opens up the gates to the possibility of using a wide margin of appreciation to further a country’s own national interests. This ambiguous approach has led the ECtHR to apply human rights protections inconsistently, often prioritizing the interests of states over the fundamental freedoms of individuals. For example, the 2005 Hirst v. UK ECtHR case shows how uniform enforcement of human rights can be undermined by a wide margin of appreciation. This case discussed a challenge to the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting rights. Although the court argued that the UK’s policy Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, the court granted the UK a wide margin of appreciation, so that they could determine the specifics on voting laws [4]. This decision shows how a wide margin of appreciation can lead to unequal enforcement of rights, including the right to vote.  
The problems presented by the ECtHR in the 1994 and 2005 cases, unfortunately, still have relevance today. The 2020 N.D. and N.T. v. Spain ECtHR case showcases how the ECtHR continues to prioritize state sovereignty and national interests over individual human rights. The ambiguity of the legislation allows for this prioritization to occur.  In this case, the Court ruled that Spain's summary deportation of migrants at its borders did not violate the ECHR. The decision allowed Spain to expel migrants without proper asylum procedures, using the "margin of appreciation" to justify state security concerns over individual rights [6]. By granting Spain a broad margin in handling immigration, the ECtHR sent a troubling signal that the protection of human rights can be circumvented when weighed against state interests like immigration control. The immigration crisis is one of the most urgent human rights issues today. If an institution like the EctHR, which is tasked with protecting vulnerable individuals such as migrants, cannot effectively safeguard their rights, it raises the question: who will? This failure signals a broader problem with how international bodies are responding to those most in need of protection, leaving vulnerable populations increasingly at risk. 
​
From wide margins of appreciation to space for much interpretation, it is clear the ways in which the ambiguity of the ECHR is leading to failure. However, it is important to note that even though there is much room for improvement in the ECtHR that does not mean it is an ineffective court. The ECtHR has had success including the absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, advocated for minority rights, and worked to protect many human rights including freedom of speech. These human rights accomplishments are not shared by all. This ambiguity leads to uneven enforcement, where vulnerable groups—like migrants—remain inadequately protected, casting doubt on the Court’s effectiveness in its mission. If the ECtHR cannot fulfill its fundamental responsibility to safeguard human rights consistently, it calls into question the role of international bodies in human rights enforcement. To address these shortcomings, the ECtHR must reform its interpretive frameworks to ensure clearer, more uniform protections, reducing the leeway granted to states under doctrines like the margin of appreciation. Only then can it truly serve as a reliable guardian of human rights for all European citizens.

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

Bibliography
[1]“Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” Council of Europe Treaty Series 005, Council of Europe, 1950.
[2] Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice . 3rd ed., Cornell University Press, 2013. 
[3] Handyside v. United Kingdom - 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5 (7 December 1976). 1976, http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1976/5.html.
[4] Hirst v. United Kingdom -  74025/01 [2003] ECHR 4 (8 July 2003). 2003, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23304
[5] Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria - 13470/87 [1994] ECHR Chamber (20 September 1994 ). 1994, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155981
[6] N.D. and N.T. v. Spain - 8675/15 and 8697/15 [2020] ECHR Grand Chamber (13 February 2020). 2020, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-201353.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.