The Tyranny of Choice and the Interpretation of Standards: Why the ECtHR Uses Consensus

51 Pages Posted: 10 Nov 2019 Last revised: 28 Apr 2020

See all articles by Daniel Peat

Daniel Peat

Leiden University - Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies

Date Written: October 30, 2019

Abstract

Recent studies in social psychology have consistently shown that individuals are inherently averse to ‘choice overload’. Faced with complex choice sets, they are unhappier with the choices they make, more likely to regret their decision, and more prone to reverse their initial choice. This article tests the hypothesis that individuals’ innate aversion to choice overload might explain why courts and tribunals interpret standards, such as fairness, necessity, and proportionality, in the way that they do. Drawing on the findings of an empirical study of 461 judgments of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the article suggests that the Court’s consensus doctrine must be understood partially as a reaction to the ‘tyranny of choice’.

Keywords: interpretation, European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, consensus, consensus doctrine

Suggested Citation

Peat, Daniel, The Tyranny of Choice and the Interpretation of Standards: Why the ECtHR Uses Consensus (October 30, 2019). New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (JILP), Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3478004 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478004

Daniel Peat (Contact Author)

Leiden University - Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies ( email )

Leiden University Law Faculty
P.O. Box 9520
Leiden, 2300 RA
Netherlands

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
91
Abstract Views
450
rank
306,309
PlumX Metrics