Динамическое толкование международных договоров и консенсус: эволюция подходов и анализ
Ключевые слова:
динамическое толкование, право международных договоров, защита прав человека, международное правосудие, консенсус
Аннотация
Анализируются меняющиеся подходы к динамическому методу толкования и консенсуса, особенности их применения в практике международных судов. Сравнение развития подходов МАСПЧ и ЕСПЧ при применении динамического метода толкования выявило, что первый в меньшей степени настроен искать международно-правовой консенсус в качестве стандарта при расширительном толковании. Развитие динамического толкования международных договоров всё еще находится в стадии разработки, а правовые аспекты данного подхода еще не определены в полной мере.
Скачивания
Данные скачивания пока не доступны.
Литература
Ispolinov A. S. The role of subsequent State practice in the law of international treaties // Legislation. 2016. No. 9. P. 79–87.
Klokke D. Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR in the light of Council of Europe documents // Digest of Public Law of the Heidelberg Max Planck Institute for Foreign Public and International Law. 2015. No. 1. P. 51–80.
Andenas M., Bjorge E. A Farewell to Fragmentation: the convergence of the methods of treaty interpretation : different regimes, different methods of interpretation? Cambridge University Press, 2015. 606 р.
Barak A. Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton University Press, 2011. 448 р.
Bjorge E. Introducing the Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties. 2014. URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/introducing-the-evolutionary-interpretation-oftreaties/
Boyle A., Chinkin C. The Making of International Law. OUP Oxford, 2007. 368 р.
Bošnjak M., Zajac K. Judicial Activism and JudgeMade Law at the ECtHR // Human Rights Law Review. 2023. Vol. 23, Issue 3. Р. 1–15.
Dzehtsiarou K. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2015. 229 p.
Dupuy P.-M. Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties : Between Memory and Prophecy // The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention / ed. by Enzo Cannizzaro. Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law, 2011. Р. 123–137.
Kagiaros D. When to use European Consensus: Assessing the differential treatment of minority groups by the European Court of Human Rights // Building Consensus on European Consensus Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 283–310.
Kukavica J. National Consensus and the Eighth Amendment // Building Consensus on European Consensus : Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond / P. Kapotas, V. P. Tzevelekos (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 364–391.
Lixinski L. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Tentative Search for Latin American Consensus // Kapotas P, Tzevelekos V., eds. Building Consensus on European Consensus : Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 2019. Р. 337–363.
McLachlan C. The Evolution of Treaty Obligations in International Law // Treaties and Subsequent Practice / G. Nolte, ed. Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 69–81.
Roberts А. Subsequent Agreements and Practice : the Battle over Interpretive Power // Treaties and Subsequent Practice / G. Nolte, ed. Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 95–102.
Rozakis C. The European Judge as a Comparatist// Tulane Law Review. 2005. Vol. 80. P. 257–280.
Schabas А. W. The European Convention on Human Rights : a Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2015. 1434 p.
Theil S. Is the ‘Living Instrument’ Approach of the European Court of Human Rights Compatible with the ECHR and International Law? // European Public Law. 2017. Vol. 23(3). P. 587–614.
Tulkens F., Van Drooghenbroeck S., Krenc F. Le soft law et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Questions de légitimité et de méthode // Les sources du droit revisitées / Hachez I., CartuyvelsY., DumontH., Gérard P., Ost F., Van de Kerchove M. (eds.). Anthémis : Louvain-la-Neuve, 2012. Vol. 1: Normes internationales et constitutionnelles. Р. 381–431.
Wheatley S. Interpreting the ECHR in Light of the Increasingly High Standards Being Required by Human Rights : Insights from Social Ontology // Human Rights Law Review. 2024. Vol. 24, Issue 1. Р. 1–23.
Klokke D. Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR in the light of Council of Europe documents // Digest of Public Law of the Heidelberg Max Planck Institute for Foreign Public and International Law. 2015. No. 1. P. 51–80.
Andenas M., Bjorge E. A Farewell to Fragmentation: the convergence of the methods of treaty interpretation : different regimes, different methods of interpretation? Cambridge University Press, 2015. 606 р.
Barak A. Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton University Press, 2011. 448 р.
Bjorge E. Introducing the Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties. 2014. URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/introducing-the-evolutionary-interpretation-oftreaties/
Boyle A., Chinkin C. The Making of International Law. OUP Oxford, 2007. 368 р.
Bošnjak M., Zajac K. Judicial Activism and JudgeMade Law at the ECtHR // Human Rights Law Review. 2023. Vol. 23, Issue 3. Р. 1–15.
Dzehtsiarou K. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2015. 229 p.
Dupuy P.-M. Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties : Between Memory and Prophecy // The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention / ed. by Enzo Cannizzaro. Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law, 2011. Р. 123–137.
Kagiaros D. When to use European Consensus: Assessing the differential treatment of minority groups by the European Court of Human Rights // Building Consensus on European Consensus Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 283–310.
Kukavica J. National Consensus and the Eighth Amendment // Building Consensus on European Consensus : Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond / P. Kapotas, V. P. Tzevelekos (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 364–391.
Lixinski L. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Tentative Search for Latin American Consensus // Kapotas P, Tzevelekos V., eds. Building Consensus on European Consensus : Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 2019. Р. 337–363.
McLachlan C. The Evolution of Treaty Obligations in International Law // Treaties and Subsequent Practice / G. Nolte, ed. Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 69–81.
Roberts А. Subsequent Agreements and Practice : the Battle over Interpretive Power // Treaties and Subsequent Practice / G. Nolte, ed. Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 95–102.
Rozakis C. The European Judge as a Comparatist// Tulane Law Review. 2005. Vol. 80. P. 257–280.
Schabas А. W. The European Convention on Human Rights : a Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2015. 1434 p.
Theil S. Is the ‘Living Instrument’ Approach of the European Court of Human Rights Compatible with the ECHR and International Law? // European Public Law. 2017. Vol. 23(3). P. 587–614.
Tulkens F., Van Drooghenbroeck S., Krenc F. Le soft law et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Questions de légitimité et de méthode // Les sources du droit revisitées / Hachez I., CartuyvelsY., DumontH., Gérard P., Ost F., Van de Kerchove M. (eds.). Anthémis : Louvain-la-Neuve, 2012. Vol. 1: Normes internationales et constitutionnelles. Р. 381–431.
Wheatley S. Interpreting the ECHR in Light of the Increasingly High Standards Being Required by Human Rights : Insights from Social Ontology // Human Rights Law Review. 2024. Vol. 24, Issue 1. Р. 1–23.
