By Fair Means or Foul: A Comparative study of the method of interpretation in regards to Article 6 of the ECHR and the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

Abstract: The Purpose of this essay is to investigate in detail the methods employed by the highest courts of law, concerning human rights, in both the USA and Europe. The author intends to highlight the similarities and differences in their methods and in regards to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This will be done by describing case law, of procedural and constitutional law, from both courts and comparing them in light of methods observed in doctrine studying the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. The detailing and comparison of the case law exposed similarities, as well as differences, in judgments and final results of interpretation, although using different methods. The case law also displayed a difference in focus, in regards to the rights as well as methods of interpretation utilized by the two courts. To highlight these differences and similarities the essay discussed morality focused methods and methods promoting foreseeability. The different methods observed in the case law of the Supreme Court and the European Court have many similarities and differences. The main differences observed, in the authors opinion, in methods was the use of Originalism, original meaning and original intent, by the Supreme Court and the use of evolutive interpretation by the European Court. A definitive similarity observed was the distinct reliance on judicial precedent in the decisions of both courts, in the final judgments as well as the use of other methods of interpretation. In the authors opinion both courts reach similar conclusions with dissimilar methods.