Pas de résumé / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

The present thesis suggests that judicial interaction can benefit constructive solutions of concrete human rights problems as a specific way of integrating European human rights protection. This affirmation is substantiated by case studies examining the interaction of the European Court of Human Rights with the UK House of Lords and Supreme Court on the one hand and with the German Federal Constitutional Court on the other. Yet, the manner in which the courts proceed in their interaction, notably in view of their potentially conflictual stances, can deflect from the concentration on constructively solving the substantive human rights problem with which the courts are confronted. Accordingly, the courts might be inclined to preserve the status quo of their initial positions and to resort to a mere compromise between the different interests involved.<p>This thesis identifies two major factors in the courts’ reasoning that inhibit the fruitful discussion of the substantive human rights questions brought up by the cases: the reference to “culture” and the focus on their institutional relationship with the balancing of possibly conflicting interests. By way of analysing practical cases against a legal- and political-theoretical backdrop, this work develops how these two factors contribute to the obstruction of a constructive interaction between the courts and to the shielding of controversial views from being discussed and challenged. In response, also by reference to the concrete practice of the courts, this thesis puts forward an approach to the interaction which avoids this inhibiting effect and therefore allows for a comprehensive, deep and critical discussion on how to solve the specific human rights problems raised by the cases./La présente thèse soutient que l’interaction judiciaire peut bénéficier à des solutions constructives des problèmes concrets de droits de l’homme comme une forme spécifique d’intégration de la protection européenne des droits de l’homme. Cette affirmation est corroborée par des études de cas qui examinent l’interaction de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme avec la House of Lords et la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni d’un côté et avec la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale de l’Allemagne de l’autre. Pourtant, la manière dont les cours procèdent dans leur interaction, notamment au vu de leurs points de vue potentiellement conflictuels, peut détourner l’attention de la solution constructive des problèmes substantiels des droits de l’homme auxquels les cours font face. En conséquence, il se peut que les cours soient susceptibles de préserver le statu quo de leurs positions initiales et d’avoir recours à un simple compromis entre les différents intérêts en cause.<p>Cette thèse identifie deux facteurs majeurs dans le raisonnement des cours qui entravent la discussion fructueuse des questions substantielles soulevées par les cas :la référence à la « culture » et la concentration sur leur relation institutionnelle avec le balancement des intérêts possiblement conflictuels. Au moyen de l’analyse des cas pratiques sur le fond de la théorie juridique et politique, ce travail fait ressortir comment ces deux facteurs contribuent à l’obstruction d’une interaction constructive entre les cours et à la protection des opinions controversées contre leur discussion et défi. En réponse, également en se fondant sur la pratique concrète des cours, cette thèse avance une approche quant à l’interaction qui évite cet effet inhibant et, par conséquent, permet une discussion complète, profonde et critique de comment résoudre les problèmes spécifiques de droits de l’homme posés par les cas.<p><p> / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Judicial activism implies a hidden politicization of the Court. The legal arguments and the methods used by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) might seem coherent. However, an inquiry into judicial activism means looking beyond the legal reasoning of the Court and trying to “connect the dots” of an alternative narrative that can explain the Court’s long-term approach to certain issues. In the case of judicial activism of the CJEU in the case-law concerning public international law, the veil for the politicization of the Court is provided by the pluralist architecture of global law. The heterarchical structure of relations among legal orders in the international arena activates the CJEU as an actor of global governance. Simultaneously, it results in the Court adopting a rather internal and defensive approach, undermining legal security.<p><p>Judicial activism of the CJEU finds its particular expressions in the case-law concerning public international law. The pro-integrationist tendency of the CJEU often raised in the literature concerning the Court’s role in the process of EU integration, translates into a substantial and an institutional dimension of judicial activism. The substantial articulation of judicial activism in the case-law concerning international law is the Court’s emphasis on the autonomy of the EU legal order. This internal perspective is adopted not only for virtuous reasons, but also in defense of definitely not universal European interests. The institutional dimension refers to the Court’s position within the EU structure of governance. The case-law concerning international law is marked by a close alignment with the European Commission and the integration of the EU goals in external relations. Moreover, the pluralist veil can cover the extent to which the Court’s decisions concerning international law are influenced by considerations completely internal to the EU. <p><p>In my analysis I proceed in three steps that are reflected in three chapters of the thesis. There is no clear and prevalent definition of judicial activism, but instead rather multiple possibilities of approaching the concept. While the general intend of the research project is to critically reflect on the concept of judicial activism of the highest courts within a legal order, the particular focus will be on the CJEU dealing with international law. I proceed in three steps. First, I assess different understandings of the role of the judge and the concept of judicial activism in legal literature in view of ascertaining the relevance of the debate and distilling some general components of a possible definition. Secondly, I identify the factors particular for the position of the CJEU within the EU legal order and with regard to international law. The particular characteristics of the CJEU result in a limited applicability of the general definitions of judicial activism. Finally, I analyze the case-law in view of identifying examples as well as counter-examples of the particular symptoms/attributes. Because judicial activism broadens the scope of the factors guiding judicial decision-making, it enables us to better understand the contingencies in the Court´s jurisprudence. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished