Hide
Show all
Email this article The Role of the Principle of Proportionality in Identifying Legal Capacity to Fundamental Rights
Abstract
The legal capacity to fundamental rights gives the right-holder the ability to exercise and enforce fundamental rights. In the absence or questionable status of the legal capacity of a right-holder, there is a need to justify such a position. In this regard, no general standards based on legal doctrine and jurisprudence can be identified. The paper focuses on the question of whether the principle of proportionality could play a role in identifying and justifying the legal capacity to fundamental rights. Based on a review of the literature, two functions of the proportionality analysis can be identified as relevant in this regard: it supports the justification of the decision to restrict fundamental rights and it precludes arbitrary decisions in relation to the limitation. The author argues that, based on its justificatory function, proportionality can play a role in identifying the legal capacity to fundamental rights in the case of human persons. In the case of autonomous organizations, in addition to its justificatory function, its function related to the exclusion of arbitrary decisions can be taken into account when using it as a standard for identifying legal capacity. In the case of human persons and autonomous organizations, there is a need for a negative justification of the limitation of legal capacity, based on proportionality. In the case of new challengers in fundamental rights disputes (such as future generations), a positive justification is required to determine legal capacity. The proportionality analysis does not play a role here, but rather other standards that require a rationality-based justification.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Abate R.S., Climate Change and the Voiceless: Protecting Future Generations, Wildlife, and Natural Resources, Cambridge 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647076.
Aleinikoff A., Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, “The Yale Law Journal” 1987, vol. 96(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796529.
Alexy R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights, Oxford 2010.
Alexy R., A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford 2011.
Alexy R., Balancing, Constitutional Review, and Representation, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2005, vol. 3(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moi040.
Alexy R., Theorie der Grundrechte, Baden-Baden 1985.
Arai-Takahashi Y., Proportionality, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, ed. D. Shelton, Oxford 2013, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199640133.003.0020.
Archard D., Children: Rights and Childhood, London 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740676.
Barak A., Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations, Cambridge 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293.
Beatty D.M., The Ultimate Rule of Law, Oxford 2004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269808.001.0001.
Bilchitz D., Ausserladscheider Jonas L., Proportionality, Fundamental Rights and the Duties of Directors, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 2016, vol. 36(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqw002.
Boda-Balogh É., Case-Based Reasoning as a Measure of Constitutional Adjudication: Remarks on the Jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court in Defamation Cases, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2023.00476.
Borowski M., On Apples and Oranges: Comment on Niels Petersen, “German Law Journal” 2013, vol. 14(8), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002327.
Brems E. (ed.), Conflicts between Fundamental Rights, Antwerp–Oxford–Portland 2008.
Brighouse H., What Rights (If Any) Do Children Have?, [in:] The Moral and Political Status of Children, eds. D. Archard, C.M. MacLeod, Oxford 2002, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199242682.003.0003.
Brown Weiss E., Our Rights and Obligations to Future Generations for the Environment, “The American Journal of International Law” 1999, vol. 84(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2203020.
Cohen-Eliya M., Porat I., Proportionality and Constitutional Culture, Cambridge 2013, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139134996.
Cohen-Eliya M., Porat I., Proportionality and the Culture of Justification, “American Journal of Comparative Law” 2011, vol. 59(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2010.0018.
Dreier H. (ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, Berlin 2013.
Ellis E. (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Portland 1999.
Engström V., Powers of Organizations and the Many Faces of Autonomy, [in:] International Organizations and the Idea of Autonomy: Institutional Independence in the International Legal Order, eds. R. Collins, N.D. White, London 2011.
Flynn E., Arstein-Kerslake A., The Support Model of Legal Capacity: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?, “Berkeley Journal of International Law” 2014, vol. 32.
Gardbaum S., Limiting Constitutional Rights, “UCLA Law Review” 2007, vol. 54(4).
Grimm D., Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Law Jurisprudence, “University of Toronto Law Journal” 2007, vol. 57(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2007.0014.
Gurbai S., Beyond the Pragmatic Definition? The Right to Nondiscrimination of Persons with Disabilities in the Context of Coercive Interventions, “Health and Human Rights Journal” 2020, vol. 22(1).
Habermas J., Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge 2012.
Harbo T.-I., The Function of Proportionality Principle in EU Law, “European Law Journal” 2010, vol. 16(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00502.x.
Hesse K., Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, München 1988.
Jackson V.C., Constitutional Law in the Age of Proportionality, “The Yale Law Journal” 2015, vol. 124(8).
Kecskés G., Lux Á., There Is No Plan(et) B – Environmental “Crossroads’ of Children’s Rights”, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2023.00440.
Kersten J., Who Needs Rights of Nature?, [in:] Can Nature Have Rights? Legal and Political Insights, eds. A.L. Tabios Hillebrecht, M.V. Berros, “RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society” 2017, no. 6, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5282/rcc/8209.
Klatt M., Proportionality and Justification, [in:] Constitutionalism Justified: Rainer Forst in Discourse, eds. E. Herlin-Karnell, M. Klatt, H.A. Morales Zúniga, Oxford 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889050.003.0008.
Klatt M., Meister M., Proportionality – a Benefit to Human Rights? Remarks on the I·CON Controversy, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, vol. 10(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos019.
Klatt M., Meister M., The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality, Oxford 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001.
Kumm M., Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review, “European Journal of Legal Studies” 2011, vol. 4(1).
Kumm M., The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Right-Based Proportionality Review, “Law and Ethics of Human Rights” 2010, vol. 4(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1047.
Kyritsis D., Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 2014, vol. 34(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqt033.
Lacey N., The Metaphor of Proportionality, “Journal of Law and Society” 2016, vol. 43(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00739.x.
Matějková J., Pavelek O., Vítek B., The Influence of the Ius-naturale Conception of ABGB on the Regulation of Personality Protection and Compensation for Non-Proprietary Damage in the Czech Civil Code, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2021, vol. 62(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2021.00329.
Möller K., Proportionality: Challenging the Critics, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, vol. 10(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos024.
Möller K., The Global Model of Constitutional Rights, Oxford 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664603.001.0001.
Mureinik E., A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights, “South African Journal of Human Rights” 1994, vol. 10(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.1994.11827527.
Ohlin J.D., Is the Concept of the Person Necessary for Human Rights?, “Columbia Law Review” 2005, vol. 105(1).
Petersen N., Alexy and the “German” Model of Proportionality: Why the Theory of Constitutional Rights Does Not Provide a Representative Reconstruction of the Proportionality Test, “German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.9.
Petersen N., How to Compare the Length of Lines with the Weight of Stones: Balancing and the Resolution of Value Conflicts in Constitutional Law, “German Law Journal” 2013, vol. 14(8), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002315.
Popelier P., Van De Heyning C., Procedural Rationality: Giving Teeth to the Proportionality Analysis, “European Constitutional Law Review” 2013, vol. 9(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612001137.
Pozsár-Szentmiklósy Z., The Canadian Approach to Fundamental Rights Disputes: Methodological Exceptionalism in Constitutional Interpretation and Proportionality Reasoning, “ELTE Law Journal” 2017, no. 2.
Pozsár-Szentmiklósy Z., The Formal and Substantive Functions of the Principle of Proportionality, “Acta Juridica Hungarica” 2015, vol. 56(2–3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/026.2015.56.2-3.8.
Rivers J., Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, “Cambridge Law Journal” 2006, vol. 65(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197306007082.
Rodopoulos I., The Dialectical Function of the Principle of Proportionality: A European Perspective, “Critical Quarterly for Legislation and Law” 2017, no. 3, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2017-3-201.
Ruppel-Schlichting K., Human S., Ruppel O.C., Climate Change and Children’s Rights: An International Law Perspective, [in:] Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance, eds. O.C. Ruppel, C. Roschmann, K. Ruppel-Schlichting, vol. 1, Baden-Baden 2013.
Schlink B., Proportionality in Constitutional Law: Why Everywhere but Here?, “Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law” 2012, no. 2.
Somody B., Constitutional Complaints by State Organs? Changes in the Standing Requirements before the Hungarian Constitutional Court, “ELTE Law Journal” 2023, no. 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.54148/ELTELJ.2023.1.111.
Stone Sweet A., Matthews J., Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, “Columbia Journal of Transnational Law” 2008, vol. 47.
Szeibert O., The Voice of the Child and the Implementation of the Child’s Right to Be Heard in Parental Responsibility Matters and Cases, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2023.00438.
Szerletits A., Paternalism vs. Autonomy? Substitute and Supported Decision-Making in England and Hungary, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2022, vol. 62(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2021.00333.
Šušnjar D., Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, and Balance of Powers, Leiden 2010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004182868.i-390.
Tsakyrakis S., Proportionality: An Assult on Human Rights?, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2009, vol. 7(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mop011.
Urbina F.J., A Critique of Proportionality, “The American Journal of Jurisprudence” 2012, vol. 57(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/57.1.49.
Webber G., The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights, Cambridge 2010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691867.
LEGAL ACTS
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (1949).
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996).
European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990).
Treaty on the European Union (2007).
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).
(UN) Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations (2023).
CASE LAW
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights [Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, Application no. 38832/06] (2010).
Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [Lüth, BverfGE 7, 198] (1958).
Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [Apotheken-Urteil, BverfGe 7, 377] (1958).
Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [Neubauer et al. v. Germany, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 288/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20] (2021).
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada [Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, 2 S.C.R. 567] (2009).
Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [Make it 16 v. Attorney General, SC 14/2022 [2022] NZSC 134] (2022).
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands [Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196] (2019).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.5.333-358
Date of publication: 2023-12-31 14:29:43
Date of submission: 2023-08-11 17:13:16
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Zoltán Pozsár-Szentmiklósy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.