Editing European Court of Human Rights (section)

==Judicial interpretation==
The court's primary method of [[judicial interpretation]] is the [[living instrument doctrine]], meaning that the [[textualism|text]] of the Convention "must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions" rather than the [[originalism|intent of its framers]].<ref name=Lemmens/><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Føllesdal |editor1-first=Andreas |editor2-last=Peters |editor2-first=Birgit |editor3-last=Ulfstein |editor3-first=Geir |title=Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-06743-1 |language=en |chapter=The ECHR as a living instrument: its meaning and legitimacy|last1=Letsas |first1=George|date=23 May 2013 }}</ref><ref name="Letsas">{{cite book |last1=Letsas |first1=George |title=A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights |date=2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-920343-7 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Koenig |first1=Matthias |title=Religious Diversity and Interreligious Dialogue |date=2020 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-31856-7 |pages=59–72 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-31856-7_5 |language=en |chapter=Governance of Religious Diversity at the European Court of Human Rights|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-31856-7_5 |s2cid=227044337 }}</ref> In ''Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey'' (2008), the court emphasized that it "upholds individual rights as practical and effective, rather than theoretical and illusory protections".<ref name=Thiel>{{cite journal |last1=Theil |first1=Stefan |title=Is the 'Living Instrument' Approach of the European Court of Human Rights Compatible with the ECHR and International Law? |journal=European Public Law |date=2017 |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=587–614 |doi=10.17863/CAM.8478 |url=https://aspace.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/263171}}</ref> Another key part of the Court's interpretation is the 1969 [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mowbray |first1=A. |title=The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights |journal=Human Rights Law Review |date=2005 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=57–79 |doi=10.1093/hrlrev/ngi003}}</ref> 

One area that the living instrument doctrine has changed ECtHR jurisprudence over time is with regard to [[differential treatment]] exclusively based on [[ethnicity]], gender, religion, or [[sexual orientation]], which it is increasingly likely to label unjustified [[discrimination]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Danisi |first1=C. |title=How far can the European Court of Human Rights go in the fight against discrimination? Defining new standards in its nondiscrimination jurisprudence |journal=International Journal of Constitutional Law |date=2011 |volume=9 |issue=3–4 |pages=793–807 |doi=10.1093/icon/mor044|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=de Waele |first1=Henri |last2=Vleuten |first2=Anna van der |title=Judicial Activism in the European Court of Justice – The Case of LGBT Rights |journal=Michigan State International Law Review |date=2011 |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=639– |url=https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/ilr/vol19/iss3/9/ |issn=2328-3068}}</ref> In addition, with the proliferation of alternative family arrangements, the court has expanded its definition of family under Article 8, for example to [[same-sex couples]], as in ''[[Oliari and Others v Italy]]'' (2015).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hamilton |first1=Frances |title=The Case for Same-Sex Marriage Before the European Court of Human Rights |journal=Journal of Homosexuality |date=2018 |volume=65 |issue=12 |pages=1582–1606 |doi=10.1080/00918369.2017.1380991|pmid=28949813 |s2cid=27052577 |url=http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/32780/1/Same_Sex_Marriage_Consensus_and_Certainty_EHRLR_FINAL.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/32780/1/Same_Sex_Marriage_Consensus_and_Certainty_EHRLR_FINAL.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Draghici |first1=Carmen |title=The Legitimacy of Family Rights in Strasbourg Case Law: 'Living Instrument' or Extinguished Sovereignty? |date=2017 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-5099-0526-3 |language=en}}</ref> Although defenders argue that living instrument doctrine is necessary for the court to stay relevant and its rulings to adapt to the actual conditions, such interpretations are labeled overreach or [[judicial activism]] by critics.<ref name=Lemmens/><ref name="Letsas"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Grover |first1=Sonja C. |title=Judicial Activism and the Democratic Rule of Law: Selected Case Studies |date=2020 |publisher=Springer Nature |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-35085-7 |isbn=978-3-030-35085-7 |s2cid=213018800 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-35085-7#about |language=en}}</ref>

===Margin of appreciation===
{{main|margin of appreciation}}
The Court uses the doctrine of [[margin of appreciation]], referring to the member states' rights to set moral standards within reason. Over time, the court has narrowed the margin of appreciation (to the point, according to some commentators, of a "demise" of margin of appreciation).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerards |first1=Janneke |title=Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights |journal=Human Rights Law Review |date=2018 |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=495–515 |doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngy017|doi-access=free}}</ref> Narrowing margin of appreciation is a target of criticism for those who believe that the ECtHR should minimize its role, especially from the United Kingdom.<ref name=McGoldrick>{{cite journal |last1=McGoldrick |first1=Dominic |title=A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for ITS Application by the Human Rights Committee |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |date=2016 |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=21–60 |doi=10.1017/S0020589315000457|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Proponents of a stronger recognition of margin of appreciation cite local conceptions of human rights, specific to the context of each country and its culture, and the risk of handing down judgements that lack local cultural and grassroots legitimacy.<ref name=Lemmens>{{cite book |last1=Lemmens |first1=Koen |title=Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights: Shifting the Convention System: Counter-dynamics at the National and EU Level |date=2016 |publisher=Intersentia |isbn=978-1-78068-517-5 |pages=23–40 |chapter=Criticising the European Court of Human Rights or Misunderstanding the Dynamics of Human Rights Protection?}}</ref> Critics argue that the principle of "emerging consensus" of the member states on which the ECtHR operates is fundamentally flawed, because such a consensus often relies on trends, and historically in many instances social and political consensus was retrospectively acknowledged to have been wrong.<ref name="Kleinlein 2017">{{Cite journal|title=Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control|first=Thomas|last=Kleinlein|date=13 November 2017|journal=European Journal of International Law|volume=28|issue=3|pages=871–893|doi=10.1093/ejil/chx055|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Such an approach is accused of risking stigmatisation and coercion of the few dissenting countries, encouraging a [[pack mentality]]. Furthermore, critics argue that the EHtCR has claimed that such consensus exists even when objectively it did not, due to the judicial activism of its judges.<ref name="Kleinlein 2017"/> It has been said that in failing to distinctly define how a consensus is reached reduces its legitimacy. Furthermore, as the ECtHR grows, the consensus between the members diminishes.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngu023|last=Roffee |first=J. A. |year=2014 |title=No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights|journal=Human Rights Law Review |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=541–572 }}</ref>

However, the margin of appreciation doctrine has also come under sharp criticism from jurists and academics who say that it undermines the universal nature of human rights.<ref name=McGoldrick/>

=== Proportionality analysis ===
[[Proportionality (law)|Proportionality analysis]] governs much of the Court's jurisprudence. The guarantees of ECHR Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 are subject to whatever limitations may be "necessary in a democratic society", citing factors including national security, public safety, health and morals, and the rights and freedoms of others. Such conditions require the balancing of individual rights and community interests, as first articulated in the ''[[Belgian Linguistic Case (No. 2)]]''. Critics maintain that proportionality engenders largely subjective rulings: a judge's personal preferences and beliefs may color their perceptions of rights' relative importance.<ref name=":0" /> The Court has established certain formulas to ensure consistency across such decisions, but these guidelines cover only a small fraction of its case law.