Winning Arguments about Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Argument Construction at the European Court of Human Rights

This study examines the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) use of the canonical interpretation techniques (textual, systematic, historical, teleological) based on a novel comprehensive dataset of 8,436 judgments. We show that while interpretation techniques are used in about one-third of cases, the ECtHR often employs multiple methods simultaneously. Textual and teleological interpretation techniques emerged as the most commonly used, with systematic interpretation also being prevalent. Our findings indicate a discernible relationship between the type of rights being considered and the interpretation techniques employed by the ECtHR to construct arguments about rights. Additionally, the study sheds light on the Court’s interpretive choices: in general, the use of interpretation techniques does not enhance the likelihood of a Convention rights violation being found. Textual interpretation may overlook broader social or policy implications and thus make judges less likely to recognize violations. On the other hand, systematic interpretation is negatively associated with the finding of a violation in justice-related rights but is positively associated with the finding of a violation in Convention articles related to ‘life and limb’. This suggests that the Court interprets the justice-related rights more narrowly when applying a systematic approach. The study forms a substantial foundation for further research into the nuanced dynamics of the ECtHR’s use of canonical interpretative techniques.