The European Convention on Human Rights stipulates the death penalty as an exception to the right to life. However, the punishment has been abolished completely in Europe through its subsequent...Show moreThe European Convention on Human Rights stipulates the death penalty as an exception to the right to life. However, the punishment has been abolished completely in Europe through its subsequent Protocols and jurisprudential development of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, Europe (the Council of Europe and the European Union) insists that the death penalty should be abolished in Japan, while Japan continues to administer the form of punishment. One of Europe’s central arguments is that: (i) Japan has become party to international agreements that include the right to life; (ii) the death penalty violates the right to life; (iii) therefore, Japan should abolish the death penalty. In so arguing, Europe promotes the norm of abolishing the punishment as universal, while Japan does not accept such a claim. Against this backdrop, the thesis is guided by the following question: how do the conceptions of the right to life differ between Europe and Japan? It attempts to answer the question through undertaking a cross-cultural examination of the conceptions of the right to life within Europe and Japan. It does so through close-reading legal instruments and case law, taking into account the views of contemporary authors. In light of European and Japanese behaviours toward the two principal issues of the right to life, namely the death penalty and euthanasia, the study concludes by maintaining that, when concerning the conceptions of the right to life: (1) alienability of life (to take one’s life) is more generally accepted in Japan than in Europe; and (2) in Japan, public sentiments continue to play a significant role, whereas in Europe they do not. While the thesis does not claim for or against the death penalty, these differences suggest that specific understanding of each right within particular social orders should not be neglected in international communications.Show less
This research examines if and to what extent the Bosphorus case and Opinion 2/13 have shifted the applicable jurisdiction away from the ECtHR and towards the CJEU. First, by reviewing the current...Show moreThis research examines if and to what extent the Bosphorus case and Opinion 2/13 have shifted the applicable jurisdiction away from the ECtHR and towards the CJEU. First, by reviewing the current literature on Bosphorus and Opinion 2/13. Second, by analysing on an individual basis if and to what extent both cases have shifted the applicable jurisdiction away from the ECtHR and towards the CJEU. Finally, this research concludes that only the Bosphorus case has shifted the applicable jurisdiction away from the ECtHR and towards the CJEU. Furthermore, this research concludes that with issuing Opinion 2/13, the CJEU made sure that the applicable jurisdiction would remain with the CJEU. The research ends with the observation that the EU is still required to accede to the EU and therefore, the CJEU has to make amends to eventually make it possible for the EU to accede to the ECHR.Show less
