Comparative International Human Rights Law: An Analysis of the Right to Private and Family Life across Human Rights “Jurisdictions”

Abstract

This article compares the application of the right to private and family life across different human rights jurisdictions. It chooses instances of “convergence” (that is, situations that fall under the purview of this right for all jurisdictions) and of “divergence” (situations that fall under the right for some jurisdictions, but under a different right in others). Through this exercise, the article demonstrates how the similarity in the language of the relevant treaties influences treaty application for the “easy” cases, but how, when faced with a “hard” case, a human rights jurisdiction is more likely to follow its own path, which is often more attuned to the legal sensitivities around the implementing body. Therefore, while at the same time institutional fragmentation is avoided in the instances of convergence, the hegemonic tendencies of international human rights law as a European project are also skirted, as seen in the “divergence” cases.

Keywords:

• Right to Private and Family Life
• Institutional Fragmentation
• Hegemony
• Constitutionalisation

Acknowledgements

I am highly indebted to Guy Baldwin for his research assistance, and for the input of anonymous reviewers and audiences in Oslo and Budapest. All errors remain my own.

Notes

1. One particular instance is a recent issue of the Erasmus Law Review, entirely dedicated to the matter of “Narratives of the International Legal Order and Why They Matter”. See 6(1) Erasmus Law Rev (www.erasmuslawreview.nl).

2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS 005, opened for signature on 4 November 1950. Entry into force: 3 September 1953. States Parties as of September 2013: 47.

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Entry into force: 23 March 1976. States parties as of September 2013: 167.

5. American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San José, Costa Rica”. Adopted on 22 November 1969. Entry into force: 18 July 1978. States Parties as of September 2013: 23.

6. African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Adopted 27 June 1981 by OAU Doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5. Entry into force 21 October 1986. States parties as of September 2013: 53.

7. M Kumm, “The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State”, in Jeffrey L Dunoff and Joel P Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2009), 258–324.

8. T Broude and Y Shany, “The International Law and Policy of Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms”, in T Broude and Y Shany (eds), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2011), 1–15, at 9.

9. T Broude and Y Shany, “The International Law and Policy of Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms”, in T Broude and Y Shany (eds), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2011), 1–15, at 11–12.

10. C Charters, “Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms and the Legitimacy of Indigenous Peoples' Rights under International Law”, in T Broude and Y Shany (eds), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2011), 289–320, at 289.

11. P-M Dupuy, “Some Reflections on Contemporary International Law and the Appeal to Universal Values: A Response to Martti Koskenniemi” (2005) 16(1) European J of Int Law 131–37.

12. MM Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (U of Pennsylvania P, Philadelphia, 2008).

13. M Koskenniemi, “Hegemonic Regimes”, in Margaret A Young (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2012), 305–24.

14. L Lixinski, “Choice of Forum in International Human Rights Adjudication and the Unity/Fragmentation Debate: Is Plurality the Way Ahead?” (2008) 18 Italian Yearbook of International Law 183–200.

15. Human Rights Committee Comm No 1155/2003 Unn & Ben Leirvag v Norway, UN Doc CCPR/C/82/D/1155/2003 (23 November 2004); and European Court of Human Rights Folgero v Norway (Application No 15472/02) (29 June 2007).

16. A-M Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton UP, Princeton, 2005).

17. N Rajkovic, “‘Global Law’ and Governmentality: Reconceptualizing the ‘Rule of Law’ as Rule ‘Through’ Law” (2012) 18(1) European J of Int Relations 29–52.

18. The American Declaration, despite being a non-binding instrument, is still often used by the Inter-American Commission with respect to individual complaints arising from individuals against OAS member states who are not parties to the ACHR (as per article 20 of the Inter-American Commission's Statute). It is therefore a valid instrument for the adjudication of these rights.

19. Article 30. Scope of Restrictions. The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.

20. See generally UNGA Third Committee, 15th Session (1960): A/C.3/SR.1016, [17] (SU); A/C.3/SR.1018, [11]–[12] (USA); A/C.3/SR.1019, [6] (GH), [11] (R), [18] & [44] (PI), [22] (LIB), [24] (SA), [27] (IND), [32] (U); A/C.3/SR.1020, [15] (R), [27] (U); A/C.3/SR.1021, [2] (YU), [4] (RI) (rejecting the “necessary in a democratic society” standard for a limitations clause, and therefore rejecting an explicit limitations clause altogether).

21. See generally UNGA Third Committee, 9th Session (1954) and 15th Session (1960): A/C.3/SR.565, [17] (AF); A/C.3/SR.1022, [7] (GB), [13] (PI), [16] (P), [24] (IL); E/CZN.4/SR.1023, [18] (PL); E/CN.4/SR.1024, [4] (CDN); E/CN.4/SR.1025, [49] (IL) (discussing the issue of uniformity across articles other than article 17).

22. General Comment No 16: The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (article 17), 04/08/1988, paras 3–4: “3. The term ‘unlawful’ means that no interference can take place except in cases envisaged by the law. Interference authorized by States can only take place on the basis of law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant. 4. The expression ‘arbitrary interference’ is also relevant to the protection of the right provided for in article 17. In the Committee's view the expression ‘arbitrary interference’ can also extend to interference provided for under the law. The introduction of the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.”

23. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, van Alphen v The Netherlands, Comm No 305/1988. Views of 23 July 1990; Human Rights Committee, Yklymova v Turkmenistan, Comm No 1460/2006. Views of 20 July 2009. For the IACmHR: IACmHR, Hector Pérez Salazar v Peru (Case 10.562), Report No 43/97, published 19 February 1998. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Niemietz v Germany (Application 13710/88). Judgment of 16 December 1992.

24. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, Birindwa & Tshisekedi v Zaire, Comm No 241 & 242/198. Views of 2 November 1989; Human Rights Committee, Sayadi v Belgium, Comm No 1472/2006. Views of 22 October 2008. For the IACtHR: IACtHR, Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru. Judgment of 8 July 2004. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Sanchez Cardenas v Norway (Application 12148/03). Judgment of 4 October 2007.

25. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, Estrella v Uruguay, Comm No 74/1980. Views of 29 March 1983. For the IACmHR: IACmHR, Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), Report No 67/06, published 21 October 2006. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Campbell & Fell v United Kingdom (Application 7878/77). Judgment of 28 June 1984.

26. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, van Hulst v The Netherlands, Comm No 903/1999. Views of 1 November 2004. For the IACtHR: IACtHR, Escher v Brazil. Judgment of 6 July 2009. For the ECHR: ECtHR, Malone v United Kingdom (Application 8691/79). Judgment of 2 August 1984.

27. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, KNLH v Peru, Comm No 1153/2003. Views of 24 October 2005. For the IACtHR: IACtHR, Artavel Murillo v Costa Rica. Judgment of 28 November 2012. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Tysiac v Poland (Application 5410/03). Judgment of 20 March 2007.

28. IACmHR, Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), Report No 67/06, published 21 October 2006.

29. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at para 12.

30. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at para 17.

31. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at para 19.

32. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at paras 46–47.

33. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at paras 232–34.

34. Biscet v Cuba (Case 12.476), at paras 241–43.

35. AAC Trindade, “International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Ius Gentium” (2005) Recueil des Cours 316 and 317.

36. IACtHR, Escher v Brazil. Judgment of 6 July 2009.

37. Escher v Brazil, at para 116. The element of “necessary in a democratic society”, as specified in another case, means that the interference must be idoneous, necessary and proportional. See Tristan Donoso v Panama. Judgment of 27 January 2009, at para 56.

38. ECtHR, Silver v United Kingdom (Application No 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75). Judgment of 25 March 1983.

39. Silver v United Kingdom, at para 10.

40. Human Rights Committee, van Hulst v The Netherlands, Comm No 903/1999. Views of 1 November 2004.

41. van Hulst v The Netherlands, at para 7.2.

42. Human Rights Committee, Toonen v Australia, Comm No 488/1992. Views of 31 March 1994.

43. van Hulst v The Netherlands, at para 7.6.

44. van Hulst v The Netherlands, at para 7.10.

45. See for instance, Human Rights Committee, Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, Comm No 67/1980. Views of 27 October 1982, paras 1.2–1.3. IACmHR, Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru (Case 504/03). Admissibility Report No 69/04, published 15 October 2004, para 16.

46. Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights. 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.

47. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, ES v Slovakia (Application 8227/04). Judgment of 15 September 2009.

48. For the IACtHR: IACtHR, Case of the Ituango Massacres v Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Demades v Turkey (Application 16219/90). Judgment of 31 July 2003.

49. For the IACtHR: IACtHR, Case of Gelman v Uruguay. Judgment of 24 February 2011.

50. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, Francis Hopu & Tepoaitu Bessert v France, Comm No 549/1993. Views of 29 December 1997. For the ECtHR: Chapman v United Kingdom (Application 27238/95). Judgment of 18 January 2001.

51. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, Joslin v New Zealand, Comm No 902/1999. Views of 17 July 2002. For the ECtHR: Dudgeon v United Kingdom (Application 7525/76). Judgment of 22 October 1981.

52. For the ECtHR: ECtHR, Case of López Ostra v Spain (Application No 16798/90). Judgment of 9 December 1994.

53. For the HRC: Human Rights Committee, Winata v Australia, Comm No 930/2000. Views of 26 July 2001; for the IACmHR: Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz v United States (Case 12.562), Report No 81/10, published 12 July 2010.

54. MA Orellana, Derechos Humanos y Ambiente: Desafíos para el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Morellana_DDHH_Nov07.pdf, 2007). Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Environment and Human Rights Report (2003).

55. ECtHR, Case of López Ostra v Spain (Application No 16798/90). Judgment of 9 December 1994.

56. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at paras 7–9.

57. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at para 1.

58. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at para 51.

59. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at para 55.

60. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at para 58.

61. Case of López Ostra v Spain, at para 60.

62. ECtHR, Case of Fadeyeva v Russia (Application No 55723). Judgment of 30 November 2005, at paras 10–18.

63. Case of Fadeyeva v Russia, at para 68.

64. Case of Fadeyeva v Russia, at para 70.

65. Case of Fadeyeva v Russia, at paras 89–92.

66. Case of Fadeyeva v Russia, at para 105.

67. Case of Fadeyeva v Russia, at para 134.

68. ECtHR, Case of Guerra v Italy (Application No 116/1996/735/932). Judgment of 19 February 1998, at paras 12–18.

69. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 40.

70. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 41.

71. Case of Guerra v Italy, at paras 42–44.

72. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 54.

73. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 58.

74. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 60.

75. Case of Guerra v Italy, at para 62.

76. See Concurring Opinion of Judge Walsh, and Concurring Opinion of Judge Jambrek.

77. ECtHR, Case of Hatton v United Kingdom (Application No 36022/97). Judgment of 2 October 2001, at para 96.

78. Case of Hatton v United Kingdom, at paras 100–7.

79. Case of Hatton v United Kingdom, at paras 116–30.

80. Human Rights Committee, Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, Comm No 67/1980. Views of 27 October 1982, paras 1.2–1.3.

81. Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, at para 8.

82. Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, at para 8.a.

83. Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, at para 8.b.

84. Port Hope Environmental Group v Canada, at para 9.

85. Human Rights Committee, Susila Malani Dahanayake v Sri Lanka, Comm No 1331/2004. Views of 14 September 2006, para 3.2.

86. Susila Malani Dahanayake v Sri Lanka, at para 2.2.

87. Susila Malani Dahanayake v Sri Lanka, at para 4.7.

88. Susila Malani Dahanayake v Sri Lanka, at paras 6.4 and 7.

89. Human Rights Committee, André Brun v France, Comm No 1453/2006. Views of 23 November 2006, at para 2.1.

90. André Brun v France, at para 3.1.

91. André Brun v France, at paras 5.2 and 5.6.

92. André Brun v France, at para 6.3.

93. André Brun v France, at para 7.

94. L Lixinski, “Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Service of the Unity of International Law” (2010) 21(3) European J of Int Law 585–604.

95. IACmHR, Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru (Case 504/03), Admissibility Report No 69/04, published 15 October 2004, para 16.

96. Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru, at para 1.

97. Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru, at para 66. These other rights include the rights to personal security, the right of the child and judicial protection.

98. Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru, at para 67.

99. Community of San Mateo de Huanchor & its Members v Peru, at para 66.

100. IACmHR, Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza v Chile (Case 4617/02), Friendly Settlement Report No 30/04, published 11 March 2004. The original petition illustrating this claim, along with other documents of the case, is available at the website of the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), who was doing the litigation of the case. See Centre for International Environmental Law website, available at http://www.ciel.org (last accessed 30 September 2013).

101. IACtHR, Case of the Saramaka People. v Suriname. Judgment of 28 November 2007, at paras 11–17.

102. IACtHR, Case of Kawas-Fernández v Honduras. Judgment of 3 April 2009, para 140.

103. Case of Kawas-Fernández v Honduras, at paras 147–48.

104. Case of Kawas-Fernández v Honduras, at paras 152–53.

105. Case of Kawas-Fernández v Honduras, at para 155.

106. IACtHR, Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador. Judgment of 27 June 1012.

107. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, at para 232.

108. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, at para 233.

109. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, at para 245.

110. L Lixinski, “Choice of Forum in International Human Rights Adjudication and the Unity/Fragmentation Debate: Is Plurality the Way Ahead?” (2008) 18 Italian Yearbook of International Law 183–200; MA Young, “Introduction: the productive friction between regimes”, in Margaret A Young (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2012), 1–19.

111. L Lixinski, “Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Service of the Unity of International Law” (2010) 21(3) European J of Int Law 585–604.

112. M Ajevski, “International Criminal Law and Constitutionalization: On Hegemonic Narratives in Progress” (2013) 6(1) Erasmus Law Rev 50–61.