Tendencias evolutivas en la interpretación del Tribunal europeo de Derechos Humanos en el marco del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos

• Svitlana Karvatska Departamento de Derecho Еuropean y Estudios de Derecho Comparado, Universidad Nacional Chernivtsi
• Mariia Blikhar Departamento de Derecho Administrativo e Informativo de la Lviv National University Lviv Polytechnic
• Nataliia Huralenko Departamento de Derechos Humanos, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Nacional chernivtsi

Palabras clave: tendencias evolutivas de interpretación jurídica, Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, interpretación de normas de derecho internacional, método de consenso, activismo judicial

Resumen

Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar las tendencias evolutivas en la interpretación del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH) por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH). Para lograr este objetivo, se utilizó una amplia gama de métodos filosóficos generales. El artículo sostiene que el CEDH ha mostrado un creciente compromiso con el método evolutivo de interpretación, utilizando la doctrina de un "instrumento vivo", el CEDH, que es particularmente importante para los Estados miembros que tienen problemas específicos, aunque este método limita el alcance en la discreción del Estado. Se concluye que la metodología interpretativa utilizada por el CEDH implica el uso de sus métodos, entre los que se están en desarrollo cada vez más los métodos de consenso, eficiencia, activismo judicial, comparación, interpretación innovadora, método autónomo y método de "equilibrio". Lo que demuestra, entre otras cosas, el potencial ilimitado para mejorar la interpretación de las normas convencionales por parte del CEDH. En el contexto de las transformaciones modernas en la dirección de una justicia internacional proactiva, el activismo judicial se aparta objetivamente de una aplicación formal de las normas legales y refleja el deseo del CEDH de proteger los derechos humanos fundamentales de personas y comunidades.

Citas

BJORGE, Eirik. 2014. The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties. University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.

BUTKEVICH, Volodymyr Grygorovych. 2010. European Convention on Human Rights: Genesis of intentions and law. Law of Ukraine. No. 10, pp. 82–83.

CHANG-FA, Lo. 2017. Treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer Nature Singapore Pie Ltd. Gateway East, Singapore.

DJEFFAL, Christian. 2016. Static and evolutive treaty interpretation: A Functional reconsruction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

DOTHAN, Shai. 2018. “The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group” In: German Law Journal. Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 2165–2188.

DZEHTSIAROU, Kanstantsin. 2015. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

ECHR. 2002. Case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom. Application no. 28957/95. Available online. In: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-5265&filename=002-5265.pdf&TID=ihgdqbxnfi. Consultation date: 14/12/2019.

ECHR. 2013. Case of Janowiec and Others v. Russia. Applicatiom no. 55508/07 and 29750/09. Available online. In: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{«itemid»[«001-127684(2)»]}. Consultation date: 14/12/2019.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. 1950. (as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13). Available online. In: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Consultation date: 14/12/2019.

EVSEEV, Alexander Petrovich. 2015. How the European Court "judges" history (on the issue of judicial activism). Problems of legality: Collection of Scientific Works. Mudryi National Law University. Kharkiv, Yaroslav.

HARRIS, David John; O'BOYLE, Michael. 2014. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights / Ed. E. P. Bates, C. M. Buckley. 3nd ed. Oxford University Press. Oxford. United Kingdom. Available online. In: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=NvH8AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false. Consultation date: 14/12/2019.

HURALENKO, Nataliia; VOLOSHCHUK, Oksana; SLYVKA, Stepan. 2020. “Interpretive activity in the judge’s professional occupation” In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 9, No. 29, pp. 427-431. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.29.05.47. Consultation date: 14/02/2020.

INAGAKI, Osamu. 2015. “Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties Re-examined: The Two-Stage Reasoning” In: Journal of International Cooperation Studies. Vol. 22, No. 2/3, pp. 127–128.

KARVATSKA, Svitana Bohdanivna. 2019. Dillemma of juridical activism in international justice. Scientific notes of Tavrida National V.I. Vernadsky University. Series "Legal studies". Tom 30 (69) num 1. Pp. 134–138.


KHARYTONOV, Evgen; KHARYTONOVA, Olena; KHARYTONOVA, Tetiana; KOLODIN, Denis; TOLMACHEVSKA, Yuliia. 2019. “Human rights as the basic value of the concept of private law in modern Europe” In: Amazonia Investiga. Vol 8. No. 20, pp. 477-485.


KOVLER, Anatoly. 2010. “Scylla and Charybdis of the European Court: Subsidiarity or Legal Activism?” In: Comparative Constitutional Review. Vol. 6, No. 79, pp. 90-100.

KRETOVA, Iryna Yuriivna. 2015. Interpretation of law: doctrines developed by the European Court of Human Rights. (Ph.D. Thesis): 12.00.01. Kharkiv, Ukraine.

MARSHALL, William P. 2002. “Conservatives and the Seven Sings of Juidcal Activizm” In: University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 1217–1255.

ORAKHELASHVSVILI, Alexander. 2008. The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law. Сhap. 10. Oxford Unisversity Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.

SAVCHYN, Mykhailo. 2016. Freedom of judicial discretion in the light of the validity of decisions of courts of appeal and courts of cassation. Legal Bulletin of Ukraine. Available online. In: https://yvu.com.ua/svoboda-suddivskogo-rozsudu-u-svitli-obgruntovanosti-rishen-sudiv-apelyatsijnoyi-ta-kasatsijnoyi-instantsij/ Consultation date: 14/12/2019.

SHERRY, Suzanna. 2014. Why We Need More Juridical Activizm. Constitutionalism, Executive Power, and Popular Enlightenment: Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper Num 13-3. Available online. In: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2213372. Consultation date: 14/02/2020.

TORP, Helmersen S. 2013. “Evolutive Treaty Interpretation: Legality, Semantics and Distinctions” In: European Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 129–130.

TYMCHENKO, Leonid Dmytrovych; KONONENKO, Valerii Petrovych. 2012. International law: a handbook. Znanja. Knowledge. Avaliable online. In: http://westudents.com.ua/glavy/64772-69-tlumachennya-mjnarodnih- dogovorv.html. Consultation date: 18/06/2019.

VENZKE, Ingo. 2015. “Semantic Authority, Legal Change and the Dynamics of International Law” In: No Foundations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Law and Justice. Vol. 12, p. 1.

WILDHABER, Luzius. 1998. The place of the European Court of Human Rights in the European Constitutional landscape: Address. Conference of European Constitutional Courts XIIth Congress / Council of Europe. European Court of Human Rights. Available online. In: http://www.confeuconstco.org/reports/rep-xii/Report%20ECHR-EN.pdf. Consultation date: 14/02/2020.

ZAHAROVA, Larisa Ivanovna. 2016. The evolutionary approach in international law as a new trend in treaties interpretation. The future of international law: collection of articles. LLC "Prospect". Moscow, Russia.