The role of emotions in proportionality analysis in British human rights cases

情绪在英国人权案件相称性分析中的作用

• 批准号: 1957939
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Essex
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1957939
• 关键词: role; emotions; proportionality; analysis; British

Following decisions of the UK Supreme Court in 2014/15, proportionality has become the central test of whether a state interference with a human right is lawful. Among other things, the test requires a court to be satisfied that there is a fair balance between individual rights and state objectives. Naturally, the question of what is a 'fair' balance can be highly subjective and contentious. The purpose of this proposal is to assess the role that emotions play in the judicial evaluation of this question. This focus situates the proposal within the socio-legal scholarship on judicial behaviour and in the emerging theme of law and emotions.The issue of judicial emotions and proportionality has not previously been addressed by academics. Indeed, while previous scholars have expressly recognised the emotional nature of human rights, they have failed to consider whether a practical assessment of proportionality by judges similarly reflects, or is based on, the emotive character of the issues. As such, a potentially critical feature of proportionality, the now dominant doctrine in human rights analysis, is absent from academic understanding.The project will centre on an evaluation of ten Supreme Court judgments involving issues of proportionality in human rights cases. The judgments will be analysed in light of appraisal theory, a linguistic model concerned with the expression of stance and attitude in language. The aim will be to assess the extent to which these judgments are influenced by emotions, eg anger at the claimant's treatment, empathy towards the claimant, or fear of terrorism, to name a few.Informing the linguistic analysis will be a consideration of theories on the psychology of emotions. Particular reliance will be placed on the culture theory of emotions and emotional intelligence theory, which focus on the role of culture, including professional culture, in constructing emotional experience and expression. Together, these theories raise the prospect that, because judges operate within a professional and legal culture expecting dispassion and impartiality from them, they develop contextually unique means of managing, using, and expressing emotions in a way deemed proper for that culture.For this reason, judicial engagement with emotions during judgments is likely to be via implicit or subtle formulations, rather than via express language ('I empathise with the claimant; thus, the appeal succeeds'). This knowledge will provide focus to the linguistic analysis, as it suggests that a concentration on subtle indicators of stance is more likely to be relevant than express formulations.The findings of this proposal have the capacity to inform and illuminate a contemporary public debate that has (in)famously emerged since November 2016. In its judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the High Court determined that the Prime Minister had no power to initiate withdrawal from the European Union without express authority from legislation. This judgment has led to senior politicians openly questioning the ability of the senior judiciary to be impartial on politically contentious matters.Human rights also fall into that politically contentious category. Through evaluation of the extent of emotional attachment in human rights cases, this proposal has the potential to shed light on this current debate on the capacity of the senior judiciary to be impartial in a contentious context. In this way, the proposal will provide an insight into the role of the judge in modern British human rights adjudication: as a neutral arbiter of the balance between rights and state interests, or something more nuanced, complex, and human.

在英国最高法院于2014/15年作出裁决后，相称性已成为衡量国家干预人权是否合法的核心标准。除其他事项外，该标准要求法院确信个人权利和国家目标之间存在公平的平衡。当然，什么是“公平”平衡的问题可能是非常主观和有争议的。这一建议的目的是评估情绪在司法评价这一问题中所起的作用。这一重点使该提案处于关于司法行为的社会法律学术研究和法律与情感这一新兴主题的范围内，司法情感和相称性问题以前没有被学者讨论过。事实上，虽然以前的学者明确承认人权的情感性质，但他们没有考虑法官对相称性的实际评估是否同样反映或基于问题的情感性质。因此，目前在人权分析中占主导地位的原则相称性的一个潜在的关键特征，在学术界是不存在的，该项目将集中于对最高法院涉及人权案件中相称性问题的十项判决进行评价。评价理论是一种关注语言中立场和态度表达的语言学模型。其目的是评估这些判断在多大程度上受情绪的影响，例如对索赔人待遇的愤怒，对索赔人的同情，或对恐怖主义的恐惧，仅举几例。将特别依赖于情绪的文化理论和情绪智力理论，这些理论侧重于文化，包括专业文化，在构建情感体验和表达方面的作用。总之，这些理论提出了一个前景，即由于法官在一个专业和法律的文化中运作，期望他们公正无私，他们发展出一种独特的方法来管理，使用和表达情感，这种方法被认为是适合这种文化的。出于这个原因，在判决过程中，司法参与情感很可能是通过隐含或微妙的公式，而不是通过明确的语言（“我同情原告;因此，上诉被驳回”）。这些知识将为语言分析提供重点，因为它表明，关注微妙的立场指标比明确的表述更有可能相关。这一建议的发现有能力为自2016年11月以来出现的当代公共辩论提供信息和启发。高等法院在R（米勒）诉退出欧洲联盟国务大臣一案的判决中裁定，首相在没有法律明确授权的情况下无权启动退出欧洲联盟。这一判决导致高级政治家公开质疑高级司法机构在有政治争议的问题上是否有能力保持公正。人权也属于这一政治争议类别。通过评估人权案件中情感依恋的程度，这一建议有可能阐明目前关于高级司法机构在有争议的情况下保持公正的能力的辩论。通过这种方式，该提案将深入了解法官在现代英国人权裁决中的作用：作为权利和国家利益之间平衡的中立仲裁者，还是更微妙，复杂和人性化的东西。