CONFLICT BETWEEN LEGAL OPINIONS OF ECHR AND NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS
https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(4).158-165
Abstract
The object of research is a relationship between ECHR and constitutional courts in various jurisdictions.
The main aim of this article is to research the conflict between opinions of ECHR and national Constitutional courts, and also to find the root of this conflict.
The methodology of this research consists of universal methods (such as analysis, synthesis, comparison) and jurisprudence-specific methods.
In the course of research, the author used various theoretical sources, ECHR case-law and decisions of various national Constitutional Courts.
Results. At this point of time, there are many theories that try to explain the relationship between international and national law. But their functioning can be observed only in practice. Many jurisdictions adhere to the concept of Dualism.
National Constitutional courts may perceive legal opinions in two different ways: adhere to the legal opinion of ECHR or reach a different conclusion, different to that of ECHR.
Because national Constitutional courts and ECHR employ different systems for establishing whether rights of the claimant were violated or not, courts may give more weight to the different factors.
In the article, the author focuses attention on such reason of the conflict as justification for limitation of one's rights.
Conclusions. Conflict of legal opinions of ECHR and national Constitutional courts is of axiological nature. Conflict per se does not imply that a given national government decided to breach its international obligations. Because of subsidiary nature of ECHR protection, conflicts is rather an exception that could be dealt with than a rule.
About the Author
Y. Nadtochey
St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Russian Federation
MA candidate, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law
Russian Federation
MA candidate, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law
References
1. Zorn A. Principles of international law. Leipzig, J.J. Weber Publ., 1903. 315 p. (In Deutsche).
2. Lukashuk I.I. International Law. General part, 3rd ed. Moscow, Wolters Kluwer, 2005. 432 p. (In Russ.).
3. Engel S. (ed.). Law, State, and International Legal Order, Essays in Honor of Hans Kelsen. Knoxville, TN, University of Tennessee Press, 1968. 365 p.
4. Triepel H. International law and national law. Aalen, C.L. Hirschfeld Publ., 1899. 452 p. (In Deutsche).
5. Bergman W. (comp.). International Law, 2nd ed., Moscow, Infotropic Media Publ., 2015. Bk. 2. 1072 p. (In Russ.).
6. Lukashuk I.I. Interaction of international and national systems of law in the course of globalization. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2002, no. 33, pp. 115–128. (In Russ.).
7. Tiunov O.I. International Humanitarian Law. Moscow, Infra-M Publ., Norma Publ., 1999. 328 p. (In Russ.).
8. Alkema Е.А. The European Convention as a Constitution and its Court as a Constitutional Court, in: Mahoney P. et al. (eds.). Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective, Studies in Memory of Rolv Ryssdal. Koln, C. Heymann Publ., 2000, pp. 41–63.
9. Costa J.-P. Legal Concepts in Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Influence on the Different National Traditions. Human Rights Quarterly Review, 2004, no. 57, pp. 101–110. (In French).
10. Konyukhova (Umnova) I.A. Constitutions of new generation: state and prospects of development, in: Alferova E.V. (ed.). Sovremennoe konstitutsionnoe pravo, Collection of scientific works. Moscow, INION Publ., 2010, pp. 29–52. (In Russ.).
11. Osminin B.I. Ways of Implementing International Obligations in National Legal System. Yurist-mezhdunarodnik, 2008, no. 2, pp. 15–34. (In Russ.).
12. Burnham W. Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States. Moscow, Novaya Yustitsiya Publ., 2006. 1216 p. (In Russ.).
13. Ovsepyan G.I. The correlations of international law and Russian Constitution law in the period of globalization and cause of state sovereign. Severo-Kavkazskii yuridicheskii vestnik = North Caucasus Legal Vestnik, 2010, no. 1, pp. 69–76. (In Russ.).
14. Patrakeev S. International Agreements on the protection of civil rights in Russian Legal System. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2005, no. 2, pp. 60–73. (In Russ.).
15. Boduan M.-E. France and implementation of decisions of ECHR, in: Sovershenstvovanie natsional'nykh mekhanizmov effektivnoi implementatsii Evropeiskoi konventsii po pravam cheloveka, Materials of international conference. St. Petersburg, 2015, pp. 91–96. (In Russ.).
16. Kovler A.I. Comparison of Conventional and National Constitutional Law - worsening of the problem (reasons and outcomes), in: Rossiiskii ezhegodnik Evropeiskoi konventsii po pravam cheloveka, Iss. 1. Moscow, Statut Publ., pp. 19–65. (In Russ.).
17. Knyazev S.D. The Constitutional Court in the Legal System of the Russian Federation. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2013, no. 12, pp. 5–13. (In Russ.).
18. Bondar N.S. Judicial constitutionality in light of Constitutional case-law. Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2011. 544 p. (In Russ.).
19. Dedov D.I. Proportionality of limitations on business activity. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2002. 187 p. (In Russ.).
20. Varlamova N.V. Proportionality as governing principle of enforcement of Public Law, in: Shirvindt A.M. (ed.). Aequum ius, From friends and colleagues to the 50 anniversary of professor D.V. Dozhdev. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014, pp. 4–30. (In Russ.).
21. Ispolinov A.S. National courts and international law: dualism under duress, in: Byakishev K.A. (ed.). Budushchee mezhdunarodnogo prava. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2016, pp. 128–138. (In Russ.).
22. Foscule A. Pyramid or Mobile? – human rights protection by European constitutional courts. Prava cheloveka. Praktika Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka, 2014, no. 4, pp. 8–12. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Nadtochey Y. CONFLICT BETWEEN LEGAL OPINIONS OF ECHR AND NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS. Law Enforcement Review. 2017;1(4):158-165. https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(4).158-165
Views:
578
Email this article 