By Fair Means or Foul: A Comparative study of the method of interpretation in regards to Article 6 of the ECHR and the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution
(2014) JURM02 20151Department of Law
- Abstract
- The Purpose of this essay is to investigate in detail the methods employed by the highest courts of law, concerning human rights, in both the USA and Europe. The author intends to highlight the similarities and differences in their methods and in regards to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This will be done by describing case law, of procedural and constitutional law, from both courts and comparing them in light of methods observed in doctrine studying the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The detailing and comparison of the case law exposed similarities, as well as differences, in judgments and final... (More) - The Purpose of this essay is to investigate in detail the methods employed by the highest courts of law, concerning human rights, in both the USA and Europe. The author intends to highlight the similarities and differences in their methods and in regards to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This will be done by describing case law, of procedural and constitutional law, from both courts and comparing them in light of methods observed in doctrine studying the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The detailing and comparison of the case law exposed similarities, as well as differences, in judgments and final results of interpretation, although using different methods. The case law also displayed a difference in focus, in regards to the rights as well as methods of interpretation utilized by the two courts. To highlight these differences and similarities the essay discussed morality focused methods and methods promoting foreseeability.
The different methods observed in the case law of the Supreme Court and the European Court have many similarities and differences. The main differences observed, in the authors opinion, in methods was the use of Originalism, original meaning and original intent, by the Supreme Court and the use of evolutive interpretation by the European Court. A definitive similarity observed was the distinct reliance on judicial precedent in the decisions of both courts, in the final judgments as well as the use of other methods of interpretation. In the authors opinion both courts reach similar conclusions with dissimilar methods. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med denna uppsats är att i detalj undersöka metoderna som används vid de högsta instanserna, rörande mänskliga rättigheter, i USA och Europa. Författaren har för avsikt att belysa likheterna och skillnaderna i deras tolkningsmetoder, rörande Artikel 6 i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för mänskliga rättigheter och femte, sjätte och fjortonde tillägget till de förenade staternas konstitution. Detta kommer att göras genom att beskriva och jämföra rättsfall, rörande processrätt och konstitutionell rätt, baserat på dem metoder som används av domstolarna. Dessa metoder beskrivs kort med hjälp av doktrin rörande Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna och USAs högsta domstol.
I beskrivningen och jämförelsen av rättsfallen... (More) - Syftet med denna uppsats är att i detalj undersöka metoderna som används vid de högsta instanserna, rörande mänskliga rättigheter, i USA och Europa. Författaren har för avsikt att belysa likheterna och skillnaderna i deras tolkningsmetoder, rörande Artikel 6 i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för mänskliga rättigheter och femte, sjätte och fjortonde tillägget till de förenade staternas konstitution. Detta kommer att göras genom att beskriva och jämföra rättsfall, rörande processrätt och konstitutionell rätt, baserat på dem metoder som används av domstolarna. Dessa metoder beskrivs kort med hjälp av doktrin rörande Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna och USAs högsta domstol.
I beskrivningen och jämförelsen av rättsfallen uppvisades likheter, såväl som skillnader, i domslut och slutresultat av tolkningsmetoder, om en med olika metoder. Rättsfallen visar också på skillnader i fokus, rörande rättigheterna och tolkningsmetoderna hos domstolarna. För att lyfta fram dessa skillnader i uppsatsen diskuterades metoder som fokuserade på moral och metoder som gynnar förutsebarhet.
De olika metoderna som observerats i rättsfallen hos de båda domstolarna har många likheter och skillnader, den huvudsakliga skillnaden i tolkningsmetoder, enligt författaren, var de två metoderna Originalism, original meaning and original intent, som används av USAs högsta domstol och evolutive interpretation använd av Europeiska domstolen för de mänskliga rättigheterna. En definitiv likhet var dock att de båda domstolarna förlitade sig mycket på rättspraxis, i såväl domslut som tolkningsmetoder. Enligt författaren når de båda domstolarna liknande beslut med olika metoder. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5275827
- author
- Samuelsson, Fredrik LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20151
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- jurisprudence, comparative law
- language
- English
- id
- 5275827
- date added to LUP
- 2015-04-17 14:07:11
- date last changed
- 2015-04-17 14:07:11
@misc{5275827, abstract = {{The Purpose of this essay is to investigate in detail the methods employed by the highest courts of law, concerning human rights, in both the USA and Europe. The author intends to highlight the similarities and differences in their methods and in regards to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This will be done by describing case law, of procedural and constitutional law, from both courts and comparing them in light of methods observed in doctrine studying the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. The detailing and comparison of the case law exposed similarities, as well as differences, in judgments and final results of interpretation, although using different methods. The case law also displayed a difference in focus, in regards to the rights as well as methods of interpretation utilized by the two courts. To highlight these differences and similarities the essay discussed morality focused methods and methods promoting foreseeability. The different methods observed in the case law of the Supreme Court and the European Court have many similarities and differences. The main differences observed, in the authors opinion, in methods was the use of Originalism, original meaning and original intent, by the Supreme Court and the use of evolutive interpretation by the European Court. A definitive similarity observed was the distinct reliance on judicial precedent in the decisions of both courts, in the final judgments as well as the use of other methods of interpretation. In the authors opinion both courts reach similar conclusions with dissimilar methods.}}, author = {{Samuelsson, Fredrik}}, language = {{eng}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{By Fair Means or Foul: A Comparative study of the method of interpretation in regards to Article 6 of the ECHR and the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution}}, year = {{2014}}, }