Abstract
When drafting a bill of fundamental rights for a constitution, a drafter must first understand the concept of a culture of fundamental rights: What is the normative dimension of fundamental rights and their coverage of civil liberties, equality rights, political rights, social rights and judicial rights, and how must national fundamental rights be interpreted in the light of international human rights instruments? Fundamental rights are not limited to “rights of defence” against interference by the state, but fundamental rights also bind the state in all three branches of power, whether retrospectively or in relation to present or future activities of the state. This provides a constant threshold for any legislation drafted by Parliament or any other provision drafted or enacted by the executive, such as ministries or other state organisations, as well as a benchmark for court decisions. The text then outlines a six-step manual for drafting a catalogue of fundamental rights, noting that each country should adapt its own wording. The chapter finally presents a draft bill of fundamental rights for a modern constitution, consisting of some 70 different fundamental rights.
An introductory video can be found on www.writingconstitutions.com.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137.
- 2.
In the controversial and widely criticised decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393.
- 3.
Cf. e.g. Art 9 para. 1 and 3 Spanish C; Art 2 para. 2 Slovakian C; Art 8 Polish C (also including the clause: “The provisions of the Constitution shall apply directly, unless the Constitution provides otherwise.”); Art 3 para. 3 CaboVerdeC.
- 4.
Still identical in the Constitution of Georgia in the 2010 version; slightly modified in Article 4 para. 4 of the 2018 version.
- 5.
Cf. Art lit b Spanish C of 1931; Art. 161 para. 1 lit b Spanish C of 1978; Art 93 para. 1 no. 4 lit a German Basic Law; Art 87 para. 1 lit d Czech C; Art 79 Polish C; Art 60 para. 4 lit a Georgian C.
- 6.
Cf. Art 107 VII Mex. C; Art 43 Argentinian C; Art 48 Costa Rica C; Art 72 Rep. Dominicana C; for Asia, cf. Section 25 para. 3 Thai C; Art 19 Uzb C.
- 7.
Cf. Federal Constitutional Court, judgement of 9 February 2010–1 BvL 1/09 et al. -, BVerfGE 125, 175, 221 ff.
- 8.
Cf. Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional n.° 862/2013, Diário da República, 1.ª série — N.° 4 — 7 de janeiro de 2014, p. 20; Acórdão n.° 313/2021.
- 9.
Cf. Federal Constitutional Court, judgement of 29 May 1990–1 BvL 20/84 et al. -, BVerfGE 82, 60, 80, 91 f.
- 10.
Cf. Ponce Solé (2013).
- 11.
- 12.
The formulation was first used by the German Federal Constitutional Court in its so-called numerus clausus ruling of 18 July 1972, 1 BvL 32/70 and 25/71, BVerfGE 33, 303, 333 (“Vorbehalt des Möglichen”). This concept has been adopted in many countries, cf. for example Perlingeiro(2014), pp. 181–212; de Souza and de Oliveira (2017), pp. 77–110; Yannakopoulos (2019), pp. 333, 354.
- 13.
Arango (2001), pp. 17, 25 ff.; the book has been published in Spanish under the title “El concepto de derechos sociales fundamentales” (Bogotá: Legis (2005)).
- 14.
As for a corresponding practice of Brazilian courts with regard to the right to health (Article 196 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988), cf. Mazur 2015, pp. 283 ff.
- 15.
Cf. in particular the judgement of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 15 January 1958–1 BvL 1/09 et al., BVerfGE 7, 198, 204 ff., and the judgement of the Spanish Constitutional Court of 14 July 1981, RI-4, 25/1981, II 5; cf. also the Italian Corte Costituzionale, judgement 467/1991 of 19 June 1991, Considerato sub 4; for Brazil Pereira Vieira (2019), pp. 145–166.
- 16.
Cf. for instance ECHR, judgement of 10 May 2010, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, para. 274: “Finally, the Court emphasizes that the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings, requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective …”. For a further analysis of the positive obligations arising from the Convention according to the decisions of the ECtHR, see Harris et al. (2018), pp. 287–8, 300–1, 501–503, 596–8, 799–800.
- 17.
For a comprehensive critical analysis see Toda (2021), “The respondent State shall…”.
- 18.
Cf. Article 16 para. 2 of the Portuguese Constitution: “The provisions of this Constitution and of laws concerning fundamental rights shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”; Article 10 para. 2 of the Spanish Constitution: “Provisions relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognized by the Constitution shall be construed in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain.”; Article 20 para. 1 of the Romanian Constitution: “Constitutional provisions on the rights and freedoms of citizens shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and with other treaties and pacts to which Romania is a party.” In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has derived from Article 1 para. 2 of the Basic Law (“The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.”) the principle that the Basic Law must be interpreted in conformity with human rights treaties. On this basis, it intensively discusses, as far as relevant, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to establish a harmony between the national fundamental rights and the Convention rights standards; cf. e.g. the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of 4 May 2011–2 BvR 2365/09 et al., BVerfGE 128, 326, 366 ff..
- 19.
- 20.
Cf. also Huber (2008), § 26, pp. 403, 453.
- 21.
The ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) is based in Strasbourg and adjudicates matters of the ECHR membership of which extends far beyond Europe and includes the 46 member states of the Council of Europe including countries based on the Balkans, in the Caucasus or Turkey. The ECJ (European Court of Justice) is based in Luxemburg and is the highest court of the EU and adjudicates also fundamental rights matters based on the EuChFR which applies in all EU member states.
- 22.
Possibly also installing the general freedom to act-principle. “What is not prohibited is permitted”, see Chap. 4.1.
- 23.
The United Kingdom has in fact been driving the formation of the ECHR, please see the Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA.
- 24.
See the Hirst Case where the European Court of Human Rights advised the United Kingdom that forbidding prisoners all participation rights in an election violates protocol 1, Article 3 of the ECHR. HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2) - 74,025/01 [2005] ECHR 681 (6 October 2005).
- 25.
Please see the foreword of why other regional conventions are not included.
- 26.
Thereby remaining the only OECD country without a constitutional fundamental rights catalogue.
- 27.
Such as expressed in Art. 6 AMRK or the many modern slavery legislations, which countries have now endorsed, albeit often with minimal sanctions.
- 28.
Compare Häberle (2004), p. 30. Häberle, P. (2017), Rechtsgutachten für die Verfassungskommission Georgien in Sachen Grundrechtsreform, unpublished.
References
Arango, R. (2001). Der Begriff der sozialen Grundrechte. Nomos.
de Souza, O., & de Oliveira, L. J. (2017). O custo dos direitos fundamentais: o direito à saúde em frente às teorias da reserva do possível e do mínimo existencial. Revista de Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais, 18(2), 77–110. https://doi.org/10.18759/rdgf.v18i2.1058
Häberle, P. (2004). Wechselwirkungen zwischen Verfassungen. In Merten/Papier (Eds.), C.F. Müller Verlag (p. 313ss).
Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E., & Buckley, C. (2018). Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick law of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Huber, P. M. (2008). Offene Staatlichkeit: Vergleich. In A. von Bogdandy, P. Cruz Villalón, & P. M. Huber (Eds.), Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum (Vol. 2, §26). C.F. Müller.
Iliopoulos-Strangas, J. (2000a). Protection des droits sociaux fondamentaux dans les Etats membres de l’Union européenne: Conclusions comparatives., Nomos.
Iliopoulos-Strangas, J. (2000b). La protection des droits sociaux fondamentaux dans les Etats membres de l'Union européenne. - Etude de droit comparé. Nomos et al..
Iliopoulos-Strangas, J. (2010). Soziale Grundrechte in Europa nach Lissabon. Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der nationalen Rechtsordnungen und des Europäischen Rechts, Teil I: Nationale Berichte. Nomos.
Iliopoulos-Strangas, J. (2019). Soziale Grundrechte in den “neuen” Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union: zugleich eine Einführung in die mitgliedstaatlichen Allgemeinen Grundrechtslehren (1st ed.). Nomos.
Mazur, S. (2015). Durchsetzung von Leistungsansprüchen aus sozialen Grundrechten in Brasilien und in Deutschland (Vol. 48). Shaker.
Pereira Vieira, L. (2019). Vinculatividade objetiva dos direitos sociais prestacionais - Da teoria da integração à pretensão metaindividual a políticas públicas. In Revista de Informação Legislativa (RIL) Brasília (Vol. 56, pp. 145–166).
Perlingeiro, R. (2014). La reserva de lo posible se constituye en un límite a la intervención jurisdiccional en las políticas públicas sociales? Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, 16(2), 181–212. https://doi.org/10.12804/esj
Ponce Solé, J. (2013). El derecho a la (ir)reversibilidad limitada de los derechos sociales de los ciudadanos:las lineas rojas constitucionales a los recortes y la sostenibilidad social. INAP.
Toda, D. (2021). International human rights courts increasing their influence on the execution of their own judgements. Global Law Press.
Weber, A. (2010). Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung: ein Studienbuch. C.H. Beck.
Weber, A. (2019). European constitutions compared. C.H. Beck.
Yannakopoulos, C. (2019). Constitution et environnement – Grèce, Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle (Vol. XXXV, pp. 333–367). https://doi.org/10.3406/aijc.2020.2766
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
1 Electronic Supplementary Material
(MP4 86,659 kb)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weber, A., Sommermann, KP., Babeck, W. (2024). Building a Fundamental Rights Culture. In: Babeck, W., Weber, A. (eds) Writing Constitutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39622-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39622-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39621-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39622-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)