University of Tabriz
Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC)
Ragheb, N., Savari, H. (2024). The Attitude of International Judicial Institutions Regarding the Doctorin of Margin of Appreciation. , 15(36), 111-140. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.59437.3345
Niloufar Ragheb; Hasan Savari. "The Attitude of International Judicial Institutions Regarding the Doctorin of Margin of Appreciation". , 15, 36, 2024, 111-140. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.59437.3345
Ragheb, N., Savari, H. (2024). 'The Attitude of International Judicial Institutions Regarding the Doctorin of Margin of Appreciation', , 15(36), pp. 111-140. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.59437.3345
Ragheb, N., Savari, H. The Attitude of International Judicial Institutions Regarding the Doctorin of Margin of Appreciation. , 2024; 15(36): 111-140. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.59437.3345

The Attitude of International Judicial Institutions Regarding the Doctorin of Margin of Appreciation

مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر
Article 5, Volume 15, Issue 36, November 2025, Pages 111-140    PDF (953.73 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.22034/law.2024.59437.3345
Authors
Niloufar Ragheb1; Hasan Savari* 2
1. PhD in International Law, University of Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Branch, Iran
2Associate Professor, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The margin of appreciation is one of the most controversial means in international law for making a balance between complying with international order and exercising the sovereignty of states. Whereas the promotion of world order requires that states avoid, as far as possible, discretionary and arbitrary measures, their increasing tendency toward the application of international requirements needs to vouchsafe certain degrees of appreciation. However, there is some ambiguity in its conditions and its scope. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this research has considered the attitude of certain international and regional dispute settlement bodies, including the International Court of Justice, WTO dispute settlement body, International Criminal Court, European Court of Human Rights, and European Court of Justice about various dimensions of this matter. The research concluded that despite the of variety viewpoints among dispute settlement bodies and international tribunals, there is approximately a similar approach to them as a whole. But it isn’t concluded that the margin of appreciation is the same in all international law fields.
Keywords
Margin of Appreciation; International Dispute Settlement Bodies; Assessment Criteria; Nstitutional Pluriflaration; Case Law
Supplementary Files
References
الف) منابع فارسی

- مقالات

  1. رهایی، سعید (1389). دکترین حاشیۀ ‌تفسیر و محدودیت‌های حق بر ابراز دین، با تأکید بر وضعیت مسلمانان در اروپا. ‌نامۀ مفید، (79)، 77-100.
  2. زمانی، سیدقاسم و عبدی، ایوب (1396). حاشیۀ صلاحدید دولتها در آزادی دین در پرتو رویه دیوان اروپایی حقوق ‌بشر. حقوق عمومی، (55)، 61-82.
  3. شریفی طرازکوهی، حسین و مبینی، جواد (1393). دکترین حاشیۀ مجاز تفسیر در رویۀ دادگاه اروپایی حقوق ‌بشر. حقوق عمومی، (44)، 73-103.
  4. شهبازی، آرامش (1389). تکثر سیستم قضایی بین‌المللی. حقوق عمومی، (29)، 116-160.
  5. فضائلی، مصطفی و رضازاده، سجاد (1398). کاوشی در سازگاری اعلامیۀ اسلامی با اعلامیۀ جهانی حقوق بشر بر پایۀ دکترین حاشیۀ تفسیر. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 10(19)، 227-255.
  6. محبی، محسن و سماوی، اسماعیل (1397). نقش رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق ‌بشر در تفسیر پویای معاهدات حقوق ‌بشری. حقوقی بین‌المللی، (58)، 7-30.
  7. موسی‌زاده، رضا؛ سبحانی، محمدرضا؛ شریفی طرازکوهی، حسین؛ منصوری، سعید (1399). مفهوم و جایگاه صلاحدید در حقوق ‌بین‌الملل. تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، (47)، 1-23.
  8. موسوی، سید فضل‌الله و امین‌الرعایا، یاسر (1393). بررسی حدود اختیارات کشورهای اروپایی در ممنوع کردن حجاب با تکیه بر دکترین صلاحدید دولتها. مطالعات زن و خانواده، (1)، 93-116.
  9. ویژه، محمدرضا و پویا، رضوان (1398). تعارض حقوق فردی و اخلاق عمومی در پرتو رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق ‌بشر. حقوق عمومی، (62)، 9-37.
ب) منابع انگلیسی

- Books

10.Letsas, George (2007). A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  1. Lorenz, Arold, & Louis, Nina (2007). The Legal Culture of the European Court of Human Rights, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
- Articles

  • Cannizzaro, E. (2014). Margin of Appreciation Aand Reasonableness in the ICJ’s Decision in the Whaling Case. Lidrin, 449-455.
  • Gerards, J. (2018). Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, (18), 495-515. Doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngy017
  • Ghantous, M. (2018). Freedom of Expression and the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ or ‘Margin of Discretion’ Revue québécoise de droit international, (31), 221-241. https://www.sqdi.org/wp-content/ uploads/221-241-Freedom-of-Expression-and-the-%E2%80%9 CMargin-Of-Appreciation%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9CMargin-Of-Discretion%E2%80%9D-Doctrine-_corrige%CC%81.pdf
  1. Kratochvil, J. (2011). The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, (29), 324-357. Doi: 10.1177/016934411102900304.
  2. Marie, A, & Luttichau, V. (1994). What Is the Meaning and Effect of the Principle of Margin of Appreciation within the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Is the Principle Compatible with the Concept of Effective Protection of Rights? L.J, (26).
  • McGoldrick, Dominic (2016). A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application By the Human Rights Committee. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(1), 21-60.
    Doi: 10.1017/S0020589315000457.

18.Mowbray, A. (2010). A Study of the Principle of Fair Balance in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, (10) 289-317. Doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq006

19.O'Donnell, Thomas A. (1982), The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, (4), 474-496.

- Documents

  • Council of Europe Treaty Series -No. 213. Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg, 24.VI. 2013.
  • International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Washington, 2 nd December, 1946.
- Cases

  • ECHR, (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC]), 931/13, 27 June 2017.
  • ECHR, (Saure v. Germany (no. 2)), 6091/16, 28 March 2023.
  • ECHR, (Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC]), 37283/13, 10 September 2019.
  • ECHR, (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC]), 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008.
  • ECHR, (Connors v. the United Kingdom), 66746/01, 27 May 2004.
  • ECHR, (Savenko and Others v. Russia), 13918/06, 14 September 2021..
  • ECHR, (Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece), 57/1997/841/1047, 10 July 1998.
  • ECHR, (Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC]), 44362/04, 4 December 2007.
  • ECHR, (Ekrem Can and Others v. Turkey), 10613/10, 8 March 2022.
  • ECHR, (S.B. v. Switzerland), 28601/11, 22 December 2015.
  • ECHR, (L.B. v. Hungary), 36345/16, 9 March 2023.
  • ECHR, (Murphy v. Ireland), 44179/98, 10 July 2003.
  • ECHR, (Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania), 69317/14, 30 January 2018.
  • ECHR, (Wojczuk v. Poland), 52969/13, 9 December 2021.
  • ECHR, (X v. the Czech Republic), 64886/19, 30 March 2023.
  • ECHR, (Rogalski v. Poland), 5420/16, 23 March 2023.
  • ECHR, (Golder v. the United Kingdom), Series A 4451/70, 21 February 1975.
  • ECHR, (Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC]), 32555/96, 10.2005.
  • ECHR, (Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia), 36500/05, 13 October 2009.
  • ECHR, (Morice v. France [GC]), 29369/10, 23 April 2015.
  • ECHR, (Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC]), 17224/11, 27 June 2017.
  • ECHR, (Senigo Longue and Others v. France), 19113/09, 10 July 2014.
  • ECHR, (M.A. v. Denmark), 6697/18, 9 July 2021.
  • ECHR, (Simona Mihaela Dobre v. Romania), 8361/21, 21 March 2023.
  • ECJ, (Commission of the European Communities v. France), Case C‑265/95, 9 December 1997.
  • ICJ, (Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: NewZealand Intervening)), 31 March 2014.
  • ICJ, (Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)), 2 February 2018.
  • PCA, (Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India (Bangladesh v. India)), Case Number 2010-16, Award 7 July 2014.
  • PCA, (People's Republic of Bangladesh Republic of India , Reply of Bangladesh), Vol.1, 31 January 2013.
  • PCA, (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau), RIAA. Vol. XIX, pp. 183-184, 14 February 1985.
  • ICJ, (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)), 3 February 2009.
  • WTO, (uropean Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos), Appellate Body Report, AB-2000-11, 12 March 2001.
  • WTO, (European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines), Appellate Body report, AB-2002-3, 26 September 2002.
  • WTO, (Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples), Appellate Body report, AB-2003-4, 26 November 2003.
  • WTO, (Korea-Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products), Appellate Body Report, AB-1999-8, 14 December 1999.
  • WTO, (United States-Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities), Appellate Body Report, 11 October 1999.
  • WTO, (European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)), Report of Appellate Body, 16 January 1998.
  • WTO, (European Communities-Definitive Anti-Dumping. Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China), Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, 15 July 2011.
  • WTO, (United States-Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China), Appellate Body Report, AB-2011-4, 5 September 2011.
  • WTO, (United States-Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea), Appellate Body Report, AB-2005-4, 27 June 2005.
  • ICC, (The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta), ICC-01/09-02/11, 19 August 2015.
  • ICC, (The Prosecutor v.Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir), The Appeals Chamber, ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2. 6 May 2019.
  • ICC, (The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,), Judgment in the Appeal by Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui of 27 March 2008 against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on the Application of the Appellant for Interim Release’, 9 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07 (OA4).
Statistics
Article View: 504
PDF Download: 282


Journal Management System. Powered by Sinaweb