Pro Homine Principle: An Axiological Compass in Interpretation Norms in the Field of Human Rights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v16.6175Keywords:
pro homine principle, international agreement, human rights, interpretation and application of treaty norms, axiology of human rightsAbstract
The pro homine principle plays an important role in the objectification of the legislative process and the interpretation of regulations. The current paper presents the pro homine principle as a means of realisation and a “canon of interpretation” in the pursuit of more effective and more efficient protection of the rights of the individual. The discussed principle may also be used to fill in lacunas in international treaties, as well as to ensure axiological cohesion, which may lead to crystallisation, clarification of norms or their evolution into principles of conventional nature. Implementation of the pro homine principle supports in detecting and counteracting arbitrariness and identifying protective measures that remain merely declarative in nature.
References
AMAYA VILLARREAL, Á.F. (2005). El principio pro homine: interpretación extensiva vs. el consentimiento del Estado. International Law. Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 3 (5), 351.
AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, Colombia, 2 May 1948.
AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS signed in San José, Costa Rica on 22 November 1969.
BENHABIB, S. (2009). Claiming Rights across Borders: International Human Rights and Democratic Sovereignty. American Political Science Review, 103 (4), 692. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990244
BENHABIB, S. (2009). Cosmopolitanism and Democracy: Affinities and Tensions. The Hedgehog Review. Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, 11 (3), 31.
BERBERA, H.R. (2017). Pro Personae Principle and its Application by Mexican Courts. Queen Mary Human Rights Review, 6, 24.
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1945). 26 of June, San Francisco.
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. Cançado Trindade. In the connection with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Requested by the United Mexican States, Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants.
CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO (1917). 5 of February.
CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN (1946). 3 of November, came into effect on May 3, 1947.
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (European Convention on Human Rights) (1950). 4 of November, entered into force on 8 September 1953, Rome.
CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES (1907), 18 of October.
DE OLIVEIRA MAZZUOLI, V., RIBEIRO, D. (2015). The Japanese Legal System and the Pro Homine Principle in Human Rights Treaties, Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 15 (1), 268-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amdi.2014.09.004
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2001). Application Samuel Einhorn v. France, No. 71555/01.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2004). Application Ilie Ilaşcu, Alexandru Leşco, Andrei Ivanţoc, Tudor Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia, No. 48787/99.
FLETCHER, W.A. (2010). International Human Rights and the Role of the United States, Northwestern University Law Review, 104 (1), 297.
HELFER, L.R., WUERTH, I.B. (2016). Customary International Law: An Instrument Choice Perspective. Michigan Journal of International Law, 37, 569, 575-576.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, Judgment of November 23, 2009.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985, Compulsory Membership in an Association perscribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention of Human Rights). Requested by the Goverment of Costa Rica.
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, in accordance with Article 49.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with Article 27.
ISHAY, M.R. (2004). What are Human Rights? Six Historical Controversies. Journal of Human Rights, 3 (3), 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475483042000224897
KADENS, E., YOUNG, E.A. (2013). How Customary is Customary International Law?. William & Mary Law Review, 54 (3), 886.
KOWALSKA, S. (2019). Zasada pro homine - konceptualizacja i zastosowanie w kontekście międzynarodowej ochrony praw człowieka / Pro Homine Principle - Conceptualization and Application in the Context of International Protection of Human Rights. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Zakład Graficzny UAM, 38, 45.
MADAN, N. (2017). History & Development of Human Rights in Indian. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22 (6), Ver. 9, 1. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2206090106
MARTINEZ, J.S. (2013). Human Rights and History. Harvard Law Review, 126 (7), 237.
MEDELLÍN URQUIAGA, X. (2013). Principio pro persona. Axotla: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Oficina en México del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos y Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal, p. 17.
NEGISHI, Y. (2017). The Pro Homine Principle's Role in Regulating the Relationship between Conventionality Control and Constitutionality Control. European Journal of International Law, 28 (2), 472, 474. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx030
NOONAN, J. (2018). Human Rights as Hinge Principles. International Critical Thought, 8 (3), 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2018.1506261
OESTREICH, J.E. (2017). Development and Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190637347.001.0001
OPINION SEPARATE OF JUDGE R.E. PIZA ESCALANTE is quoted for: Medellín Urquiaga, X. 2013. Principio pro persona, Axotla: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Oficina en México del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos y Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal, p. 17.
PROTOCOLS ADDITIONAL to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), adopted on 8 June 1977.
TOBIN, J. (2010). Seeking to Persuade: A Constructive to Human Rights Treaty Interpretation. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 23, 5.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948), 10 of December, Paris.
VIENNA CONVENTION on the Law of Treaties was adopted on 22 May 1969 and opened for signature on 23 May 1969.
WOLFKE, K. (1964). Custom in Present International Law. Wrocław: Prace Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 52.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Samanta Samanta Kowalska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
