Comparative Freedom of Assembly and the Fragmentation of International Human Rights Law

Abstract

Assuming that the issue of fragmentation of international human rights law can also be usefully examined in the case-law on particular rights using a comparative method, this article examines the divergence and convergence of freedom of assembly guarantees and jurisprudence in international fora. It finds that some identified divergences in fact point to underlying common concerns and assumptions about assemblies. On this basis, the article argues that the fragmentation discourse is prone to structurally analogous, though “reverse”, fallacies as the methodology of comparative law. In particular, the functionalist method is much criticised for being apologetic or trapped within one's own conceptual and institutional system, a concern which might be present in the fragmentation debate as well. The article concludes on this basis by formulating some suggestions which might be applied to examining fragmentation in international human rights law and potentially beyond.

Keywords:

• Assembly
• Fragmentation
• Expression
• ICCPR
• ECHR
• Comparative Law
• Functionalism

Notes

1. BVerfGE 69, 315 (“Brokdorf”), 1985.

2. African Court of Human & Peoples' Rights, Tanganyika Law Society et al. v United Republic of Tanzania, Application Nos 09/2011 and 11/2011. Judgment of 14 June 2013.

3. See Adjevski, this issue.

4. M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl, NP Engel, 2005), at 392.

5. See, e.g., Djavit An v Turkey, Application No 20652/92. Judgment of 20 February 2003, §65 (finding a violation for non-foreseeability).

6. D Mead, The New Law of Peaceful Protest. Rights and Regulations in the Human Rights Act Era (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2010), at 361.

7. For instance, the legitimate aim of preventing disorder qualified the unhindered flow of traffic in a pedestrian area or avoiding excessive noise in Commission decisions (GS v Austria, Application No 14923/89. Decision on admissibility of 30 November 1992, S v Austria, Application No 13812/88. Decision on admissibility of 3 December 1990). The court, in a similar vein, accepted the enforced evacuation of a church occupied by protestors with the consent of religious authorities (Cisse v France, Application No 51346/99. Judgment of 9 April 2002), similar to a retrospective disciplinary sanction, imposed after the assembly was long over (Ezelin v France, Application No 11800/85. Judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A No 202) as measures pursuing the prevention of disorder.

8. M Koskenniemi, Report on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 2006).

9. Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v Bulgaria, Application Nos 29221/95, 29225/95. Judgment of 2 October 2001.

10. Chappell v United Kingdom, Application No 12587/86. Admissibility decision of 14 July 1987.

11. Pendragon v United Kingdom, Application No 31416/96. Admissibility decision of 19 October 1998.

12. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria, Application No 10126/82. Judgment of 21 June 1988.

13. Christians against Racism & Fascism (CARAF) v United Kingdom, Application No 8440/78. Admissibility decision of 16 July 1980.

14. Ezelin v France, Application No 11800/85. Judgment of 26 April 1991.

15. Galstyan v Armenia, Application No 26986/03. Judgment of 15 November 2007.

16. Ziliberberg v Moldova, Application No 61821/00. Admissibility decision of 4 May 2004.

17. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria, supra note 12.

18. Oya Ataman v Turkey, Application No 74552/01. Judgment of 5 December 2006 at §35.

19. Oya Ataman v Turkey, §39, referring to Cisse v France, Application No 51346/99. Judgment of 9 April 2002, §50.

20. E.g. §53, Lehideux & Isorni v France, Application No 55/1997/839/1045. Judgment of 23 September 1998.

21. A close case is though the French “Gallic soup” demonstration, Association Solidarité des Francais v France, No 26787/07. Admissibility decision of 16 June 2011. Even there, however, the court found that the discriminatory message of the demonstrators would cause disturbances to public order, and this latter fact mandated the finding of inadmissibility (manifestly ill-founded). Thus, the message was not qualified as unpeaceful, thus falling outside article 11, nor abusive of the right to assembly, falling under article 17.

22. M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl, NP Engel, 2005), at 372; M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 476.

23. M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 477. Obs. fin., Fédération de Russie, CCPR/CO79/RUS, 4 November 2003, at para 20.

24. M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 477. Obs. fin., Région administrative spéciale de Hong Kong, CCPR/C/HKG/CO/2, 30 March 2006, at para 20.

25. M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl, NP Engel, 2005), at 387; M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 477–78. E.g. Obs. fin. Argentine, CCPR/CO/70/ARG, 1 November 2000, at para 13.

26. Concl. obs., Canada, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, at para 20, 28 October 2005. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.C.CAN.CO.5.En

27. Rassemblement jurassien & Unité jurassienne v Switzerland, Application No 8191/78. Admissibility decision, 10 October 1979, DR 17, 108, 119.

28. Oya Ataman v Turkey, Application No 74552/01. Judgment of 5 December 2006, §16 of the judgment, quoting §29 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) interpreting the OSCE/ODHIR guidelines on drafting laws on freedom of assembly with regard to the regulation of public meetings, adopted at its 64th plenary session (21–22 October 2005).

29. Oya Ataman v Turkey, Application No 74552/01. Judgment of 5 December 2006.

30. Bukta v Hungary, Application No 25691/04. Judgment of 17 July 2007.

31. See, e.g, Kivenmaa v Finland, Comm No 412/1990, 31 March 1994, §9.1.

32. Chebotareva v Russia, Comm No 1866/2009, 26 March 2012.

33. Gryb v Belarus, Comm No 1316/2004, 26 October 2011.

34. A rather easy HRC case involved the conviction of two persons distributing leaflets organising an “unauthorized mass event” in Belarus does not need to be discussed in detail. See Zalesskaya v Belarus, 1604/2007, 28 March 2011. In Belyazeka v Belarus, Comm No 1772/2008, 23 March 2012, where a 30-person, peaceful commemoration of Stalinist crimes in a forest was dispersed and the organiser fined for organising an unauthorised mass event, the HRC similarly found a violation of both article 19 and 21.

35. Chassagnou v France, Applications Nos 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95. Judgment of 29 April 1999, 1999 ECHR 22, §100.

36. Tatár & Fáber v Hungary, Application Nos 26005/08 and 26160/08. Judgment of 12 June 2012.

37. Rassemblement jurassien & Unité jurassienne v Switzerland, Application No 8191/78. Admissibility decision of 10 October 1979, DR 17, 108, at 118 et seq., and Christians Against Racism & Fascism (CARAF) v United Kingdom, Application No 8440/78. Admissibility decision of 16 July 1980, DR 21, 138, at 148, Barankevich v Russia, Application No 10519/03. Judgment of 26 July 2007, §25.

38. Rassemblement jurassien & Unité jurassienne v Switzerland, Application No 8191/78. Admissibility decision of 10 October 1979, DR 17, 108, 118 et seq., and Christians against Racism & Fascism (CARAF) v United Kingdom, Application No 8440/78. Admissibility decision of 16 July 1980, DR 21, 138, at 148.

39. The Commission noted that “[t]here is … no indication in the … case-law that freedom of assembly is intended to guarantee a right to pass and re-pass in public places, or to assemble for purely social purposes anywhere one wishes. Freedom of association, too, has been described as a right for individuals to associate ‘in order to attain various ends.’” Anderson v United Kingdom, Application No 33689/96. Admissibility decision of 27 October 1997, 25 EHRR CD 172.

40. E.g. Hashman & Harrup v United Kingdom, Application No 25594/94. Judgment of 25 November 1999.

41. E.g. Cox v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).

42. Explicitly in BVerfG, Beschluß vom 23. 6. 2004 – 1 BvQ 19/04. NJW 2004, 2814. (“Stoppt den Synagogenbau!”).

43. Oberschlick v Austria (No 1), Application No 11662/85. Judgment of 23 May 1991, §57.

44. Women on Waves v Portugal, Application No 31276/05. Judgment of 3 February 2009, §38–39.

45. Fáber v Hungary, Application No 40721/08. Judgment of 24 July 2012, §58.

46. Fáber v Hungary, emphasis added.

47. Tatár & Fáber, §29.

48. In this case, the fine was imposed with regard to a prior restraint unacceptably on a core political speech, thus the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10, was found to have been violated.

49. Tatár and Fáber, §40.

50. Women on Waves v Portugal, Application No 31276/05. Decision of 3 February 2009.

51. Coleman v Australia, Comm No 1157/2003, 17 July 2006.

52. See the strong dissent of Kurt Herndl. M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 480.

53. M Bidault, Article 21 in Le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; commentaire article par article (E. Decaux, Paris, Economica, 2010), at 480.

54. Chorherr v Austria, Application No 13308/87. Judgment of 25 August 1993, §31–32.

55. M Rosenfeld, “Constitutional Migration and the Bounds of Comparative Analysis” (2001–2003) 58 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 67–83; or SG Calabresi and KH Rhodes, “The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary” (1992) 105 Harvard L Rev 1153–1216, at 1199–200.

56. HRC: Unn & Ben Leirvag v Norway, Comm No 1155/2003, 23 November 2004; ECtHR: Folgero v Norway, Application No 15472/02. Judgment of 29 June 2007.

57. TA El-Haj, “The Neglected Right of Assembly” (2009) 56 UCLA L Rev 543–; JD Inazu, “The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly” (2010) 84 Tulane Law Review 565–612.

58. See, e.g., Cox v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), at 555, “emphatically” rejecting that “the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech.”

59. NN, “Reflections on Justice Black and Freedom of Speech” (1972) 6 Val U L Rev 316–331.

60. T Győrfi, “The Importance of Freedom of Assembly: Three Models of Justification”, in A Sajó (ed), Free to Protest: Constituent Power and Street Demonstrations (Eleven, Utrecht, 2009), 1–17; similarly, D Smilov, “The Power of Assembled People: The Right to Assembly and Political Representation”, in A Sajó (ed), Free to Protest: Constituent Power and Street Demonstrations (Eleven, Utrecht, 2009), 98–105.

61. G Le Bon, The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind (MacMillan, New York, 1896); S Freud, Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag GmBH, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich, 1921).

62. MR Saleilles, “Conception et objet de la science du droit comparé”, in Congrès international de droit comparé. Procés-verbaux des séances et documents. Tome premier. (LGDJ, Paris, 1905) 167–189.

63. E Rabel, Das Recht des Warenkaufs. Eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung (2 Bände, Tübingen/Berlin, 1936 and 1957).

64. G Frankenberg, “Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law” (1985) 26 Harvard Int L J 411–456; R Teitel, “Comparative Constitutional Law in a Global Age” (2004) 117 Harvard L Rev 2570–.

65. K Zweigert and H Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung (Tübingen, JCB Mohr, 1996).

66. O Kahn-Freund, “On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law” (1974) 37 Modern Law Review 1–27; I Vörös, “Contextuality and Universality: Constitutional Borrowings on the Global Stage – the Hungarian View” (1998–1999) 1 U of Pennsylvania J of Const L 651–660.

67. A Somek, “The Deadweight of Formulae: What Might Have Been the Second Germanization of American Equal Protection Review” (1998–1999) 1 U of Pennsylvania J of Const L 284–324.

68. R Teitel, “Comparative Constitutional Law in a Global Age” (2004) 117 Harvard L Rev 2570–2697.