The <i>Travaux Préparatoires</i> and Progressive Treaty Interpretation: Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Abstract Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has become a central provision employed by the European Court of Human Rights in response to authoritarian practices in Europe over the last decade. Notwithstanding its increased use, important disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of the provision. Analysing the provision’s ordinary meaning, the convention’s travaux préparatoires as a whole and the interpretation of the provision by majority and minority judges of the Court, this article identifies three competing normative models for specifying Article 18’s purpose. Whilst the text is open for Article 18 to address all forms of abuse of power – authoritarian or democratic – the travaux suggest a purpose of detecting emerging authoritarian practices. The majority on the Court’s bench, on the other hand, view Article 18 as a narrow tool to respond to predominant and pronounced authoritarian practices. These normative disagreements are also reflected in concurring and dissenting opinions annexed to Article 18 judgments, with some minority judges defending the narrow normative model and others advocating for a more progressive interpretation, not only on familiar grounds of evolutive interpretation but also because the convention’s history calls for progressive interpretation of this particular provision. Our findings complicate the well-established presumption that progressive interpretation of the convention comes about by treating it as a ‘living instrument’ at the expense of the drafters’ intent, highlighting the turn to ‘progressive originalism’ in the interpretation of Article 18 of the ECHR.