不确定确定性?:解读欧洲人权法院的证明标准

Q3 Social Sciences International Human Rights Law Review Pub Date : 2019-11-30 DOI:10.1163/22131035-00802001
C. Bicknell
{"title":"不确定确定性?:解读欧洲人权法院的证明标准","authors":"C. Bicknell","doi":"10.1163/22131035-00802001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.","PeriodicalId":13730,"journal":{"name":"International Human Rights Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22131035-00802001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertain Certainty?: Making Sense of the European Court of Human Rights’ Standard of Proof\",\"authors\":\"C. Bicknell\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00802001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)宣布了一个单一的证明标准(“SoP”):无合理怀疑的证明(“rd”)。然而,这一说法的准确性和门槛的适当性都受到了质疑。本条独特地考虑并澄清了法院对其SoP的解释和适用。证明SoP既有广义的解释,也有狭义的解释,这表明法院对SoP的解释只是狭义的。这一理解确认brd是适用的标准,然后通过对判例法的详细审查来考虑其使用。分析表明,尽管法院对brd的概念和方法必然存在一些疑问,但发现违规行为的确定性始终很高。然而,在提及《法院规则》时却出现了明显的不一致。此外,《规则》并没有完全体现法院的做法。正如该条所建议的那样,解决这一问题将加强相关决定的一致性和合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Uncertain Certainty?: Making Sense of the European Court of Human Rights’ Standard of Proof
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The International Human Rights Law Review (HRLR) is a bi-annual peer-reviewed journal. It aims to stimulate research and thinking on contemporary human rights issues, problems, challenges and policies. It is particularly interested in soliciting papers, whether in the legal domain or other social sciences, that are unique in their approach and which seek to address poignant concerns of our times. One of the principal aims of the Journal is to provide an outlet to human rights scholars, practitioners and activists in the developing world who have something tangible to say about their experiences on the ground, or in order to discuss cases and practices that are generally inaccessible to European and NorthAmerican audiences. The Editors and the publisher will work hands-on with such contributors to help find solutions where necessary to facilitate translation or language editing in respect of accepted articles. The Journal is aimed at academics, students, government officials, human rights practitioners, and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals and organisations interested in the area of human rights law. The Journal publishes critical articles that consider human rights law, policy and practice in their various contexts, at global, regional, sub-regional and national levels, book reviews, and a section focused on an up-to-date appraisal of important jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems including those in the developing world.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Note Inter-States Disputes Under the Inter-American Human Rights System Inter-State Cases under icerd as an Avenue to Protect Cultural Heritage The Path Less Taken? Interstate Conciliation and Human Rights General comment No. 26 (2023) on Children’s Rights and the Environment, with a Special Focus on Climate Change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1