Towards the construction of a universal conception of fundamental rights in the 20th century

De Baripedia
La version imprimable n’est plus prise en charge et peut comporter des erreurs de génération. Veuillez mettre à jour les signets de votre navigateur et utiliser à la place la fonction d’impression par défaut de celui-ci.

Based on a course by Victor Monnier[1][2][3]

The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a pivotal moment in history, marking a radical change in the way rights and freedoms were perceived and implemented. The key concept of this period was that the law should be the expression of the general will, an idea strongly influenced by Enlightenment philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In this spirit, the law, being the emanation of the will of the people expressed by their representatives, was seen as an instrument of freedom rather than a means of oppression. This idea broke with the previous conception of the law as a tool used by monarchs and elites to maintain their power. The Revolution also helped to spread the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity across Europe. These ideals influenced numerous legislative and constitutional reforms in other countries, laying the foundations for modern human rights and democratic governance. The principles of popular sovereignty and human rights enunciated during the French Revolution have had a lasting effect on the development of legal and political systems throughout the world.

The twentieth century was a period of profound contradictions regarding the role of law in society. While it saw significant advances in the global recognition and protection of human rights, it also witnessed the use of law as an instrument of totalitarianism. In many parts of the world, the law, traditionally seen as a guarantor of justice and order, has been manipulated to serve authoritarian regimes, often with devastating consequences.

Nazi Germany offers a particularly striking example of this perversion of the law. Under Adolf Hitler's regime, laws such as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were used to institute and legitimise racial and anti-Semitic discrimination. These laws not only stripped German Jews of their civil rights, but also paved the way for the Holocaust, one of the greatest tragedies in modern history. In the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, the law became a tool of massive political repression. The Great Purges of the 1930s, for example, saw hundreds of thousands of people accused of political crimes, often on the basis of fabricated evidence or forced confessions, then executed or sent to labour camps. These purges were legitimised by laws that extended the definition of political crimes and strengthened state control over individual lives. In Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy, the law was used to crush all political opposition and promote Fascist ideology. The Fascist Laws of 1925-1926, for example, marked a decisive step in the transformation of Italy into a totalitarian state, giving Mussolini sweeping powers and severely curtailing civil liberties.

These historical examples illustrate how, in the hands of authoritarian regimes, the law can become an instrument of oppression rather than protection. The twentieth century, with its wars, revolutions and totalitarian regimes, thus posed unique challenges to the ideal of the rule of law, making it clear that the law itself can be used both to liberate and to enslave. This duality of law has been a crucial lesson of this period, significantly influencing modern understanding of human rights, governance and the need for protections against abuses of power.

The peace treaties: 1919 - 1920

The end of the First World War in 1918 left Europe deeply bruised and exhausted. The victorious nations of the Entente, under the leadership of US President Woodrow Wilson, were determined to establish a new international order, hoping to avoid a recurrence of such a conflict. President Wilson, in particular, played a decisive role in formulating this new vision of the world, with his famous "Fourteen Points", which were presented in January 1918 as a proposal for securing a lasting peace. A key element of Wilson's vision was the creation of the League of Nations, an international organisation designed to provide a forum for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and to encourage international cooperation. The League of Nations was formally established in 1920 as part of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war between Germany and the Allies. Although the aim of the League was to prevent future conflicts, it was handicapped by a number of weaknesses, notably the lack of US participation and the inability to take decisive action against aggression. In addition, the Treaty of Versailles itself, with its harsh reparations imposed on Germany and the redefinition of national borders, created tensions and resentments that contributed to the emergence of the Second World War. Attempts to establish an international order based on sound legal principles were thus hampered by divergent national interests and an uneven application of the principles of justice and equity. However, this period laid the foundations for international thinking and practice for decades to come, underlining the importance of international cooperation and international law. The post-First World War experience also highlighted the complexity of building a stable and just world order, a challenge that will continue to shape world politics throughout the twentieth century.

The peace treaties that followed the First World War marked a significant turning point in the consideration of fundamental rights at international level, particularly as regards the rights of minorities. Although the main focus of these treaties was to redefine national borders and organise war reparations, they also introduced revolutionary concepts of human rights. A notable aspect of these treaties was their recognition of the rights of ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities. With the collapse of multinational empires such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, and the redefinition of national borders, the protection of minorities became a crucial issue. Peace treaties sought to guarantee these rights to prevent the oppression of minorities in new states or states whose borders had been redrawn. For example, the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and the Treaty of Trianon (1920) contained specific provisions for the protection of minorities in Central and Eastern Europe. These provisions obliged the new States or those that had acquired new territories to grant certain minorities rights in terms of language, education, religion and participation in public life. Although these efforts were progressive for their time, their implementation was uneven and often insufficient. The guarantees set out in the treaties were not always respected, and in some cases even exacerbated nationalist tensions. However, the inclusion of such provisions in peace treaties set an important precedent for the recognition of minority rights in international law, laying the foundations for what would later become more comprehensive international human rights conventions.

The defeat of the central empires in the First World War - Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - had major consequences for the political map of Europe and the Middle East. This situation gave rise to the crucial question of the fundamental rights of minorities, in a context where the territorial recomposition by the victorious powers encouraged the emergence of new nation states and a wave of independence. The collapse of multinational empires, which included a diversity of ethnic, linguistic and religious groups, left a political vacuum and a series of complex issues concerning sovereignty and national identity. Peace treaties, notably those of Versailles (1919), Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919), Trianon (1920), and Sèvres (1920), redrawn borders and created new states based on the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, an idea popularised by President Woodrow Wilson.

However, the creation of these new nation states often led to the exclusion or marginalisation of minority groups. For example, the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire gave rise to several new nation-states, such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary, each with its own challenges relating to minority rights. Similarly, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire led to the formation of new states in the Middle East, exacerbating intercommunal tensions. Against this backdrop, the peace treaties attempted to establish protections for minorities, but these measures were often inadequate and poorly applied. The issue of minorities has thus become a persistent problem, leading to tensions and conflicts in several regions. These challenges highlighted the complexity of managing minority rights in a world increasingly divided into nation-states, and served as an important lesson for future efforts to protect human rights at the international level.

The reconstruction of Europe after the First World War, marked by the creation of new nation states, was a complex and risky undertaking. The redefinition of borders and the break-up of multinational empires led to the emergence of states made up of heterogeneous populations, with significant differences in terms of language, culture, religion and ethnic origin. This situation has posed considerable challenges and created uncertainties about the stability and unity of these new countries. The principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, promoted by President Woodrow Wilson and other world leaders, was in theory a noble ideal. In practice, however, the application of this principle was often complex and flawed. In many cases, the borders of the new states did not clearly correspond to ethnic or cultural divisions. For example, the creation of Czechoslovakia brought together Czechs and Slovaks, but also Germans, Hungarians, Ruthenians and other minority groups. Yugoslavia, formed in part from the remains of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, brought together Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians, each with their own cultural and historical identity. This heterogeneity gave rise to internal tensions, as minority groups often felt marginalised or oppressed by the dominant majorities. The protections offered by the peace treaties in favour of minorities were insufficient and were not always effectively implemented. In addition, rising nationalism in several of these states exacerbated divisions and sometimes led to discriminatory or assimilationist policies.

The case of Germany is also relevant. With the Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost significant territory and was subject to heavy reparations. This situation fuelled feelings of resentment and humiliation, creating fertile ground for political extremism and paving the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. The recomposition of Europe after the First World War was a bold attempt to redraw the political map of the continent. However, it also revealed the limits and risks inherent in creating nation states in such a diverse region. The resulting tensions and conflicts were defining factors in twentieth-century European history, ultimately leading to further tragedies, notably the Second World War.

To prevent the risk of clashes and tensions within the new states formed after the First World War, the authors of the peace treaties put in place a system of protection designed to prevent the abuse of power against minorities. This system was a recognition of the need to protect the rights of minority groups in the complex context of the territorial and political recomposition of Europe. Minority clauses in peace treaties, such as those in the Treaty of Versailles and similar agreements, sought to guarantee fundamental rights to minority populations. These rights included protection against discrimination, the right to preserve their language, culture and religion, as well as access to education and political participation. The idea was to create legal guarantees so that minorities would not be subjected to oppression or forced assimilation by national majorities.

In theory, this system of protection represented a major advance in international law. It was the first time that such attention had been paid to minority rights in international treaties. However, in practice, the application and effectiveness of these measures proved problematic. The lack of effective enforcement mechanisms and the absence of sufficient political will among some signatory states have often rendered these protections ineffective. In addition, the League of Nations, which was supposed to monitor and enforce these commitments, has often found itself powerless to address violations of minority rights. In some cases, states have circumvented or openly ignored their obligations, exacerbating ethnic and national tensions. Despite these shortcomings, the effort to protect minority rights in post-war peace treaties was an important step in the development of international human rights law. It laid the foundations for more robust future initiatives and highlighted the crucial importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable groups in complex international contexts.

Articles 86 and 93 of the Treaty of Versailles play a key role in the history of international minority rights law. They illustrate the efforts of the Allied Powers to incorporate the protection of minorities into post-First World War peace treaties.

Article 86 was specifically addressed to Czechoslovakia, a state newly formed from the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. This article stipulated that Czechoslovakia had to accept such provisions as the Allied Powers deemed necessary for the protection of minorities. This clause was particularly relevant given the ethnic and cultural diversity of Czechoslovakia, which included Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians and other minority groups. Article 93, on the other hand, concerned Poland. As in the case of Czechoslovakia, Poland had to undertake to respect the provisions for the protection of minorities. This commitment was crucial in the Polish context, where the coexistence of various nationalities, including Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews and Germans, posed significant challenges in terms of rights and inter-community relations.

These articles were part of a wider effort to establish international standards for the protection of minority rights. The treaties signed at Versailles in 1919 for Poland, and at Saint-Germain-en-Laye for Czechoslovakia, were concrete attempts to formalise these commitments. These treaties aimed to ensure that the new nation states would respect the rights of all their citizens, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. Although these measures marked an important step forward in the recognition of minority rights, their effective implementation has been a challenge. The lack of effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms has often limited their impact. Nevertheless, these articles set an important precedent for the inclusion of minority rights in international law, laying the groundwork for further developments in this area.

The stipulations concerning the protection of minorities set out in Articles 86 and 93 of the Treaty of Versailles were implemented through specific treaties signed at Versailles and Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1919. These treaties aimed to officially recognise new nation states such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, while simultaneously guaranteeing the protection of minority rights within these states. The treaty signed in Versailles on 26 June 1919 concerning Poland formalised the rebirth of this state after more than a century of partition and occupation by the Russian, Prussian and Austro-Hungarian empires. This treaty not only recognised Poland's independence but also imposed obligations in terms of protecting the rights of minorities. Given the ethnic and linguistic diversity in Poland, these provisions were crucial to ensuring peaceful and equitable cohabitation between the different groups.

Similarly, the treaty signed in Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1919 with Czechoslovakia, a state newly formed from territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, contained specific clauses for the protection of minorities. These clauses were essential given the complex ethnic composition of Czechoslovakia, which included not only Czechs and Slovaks, but also Sudeten Germans, Hungarians, Ruthenians and other minority groups. These treaties represented a major advance in international law, as they marked one of the first times that the protection of minorities was formally recognised and incorporated into international agreements. However, their effectiveness in practice has been variable, due to the lack of effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, as well as political and nationalist tensions within the states concerned. Despite these limitations, these treaties have laid the foundations for further developments in the international protection of minority rights.

The provisions on the protection of minorities in the treaties concerning Poland and Czechoslovakia, drawn up after the First World War, marked a fundamental stage in the evolution of the protection of human rights at international level. These treaties represented the first concrete attempt to implement legal protections for minority groups within new nation states, and although their implementation was imperfect, they paved the way for future developments in the field of human rights. These stipulations reflected a growing awareness of the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of all individuals, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic or religious background. They recognised that long-term peace and stability in Europe depended not only on resolving territorial disputes and war reparations, but also on ensuring that the new states treated all their people fairly.

Although these efforts focused on minority rights, they laid important groundwork for the development of broader human rights concepts. For example, these treaties introduced the idea that respect for human rights is a matter of international concern and not just an internal affair of States. This paved the way for subsequent international conventions and declarations, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which broadened and strengthened the protection of human rights worldwide. Thus, although specific in scope and limited in application, the provisions relating to minorities in the post-First World War treaties were a significant step towards the development of an international legal framework for the protection of human rights.

The guarantee system set up by the League of Nations for the protection of minorities was part of a broader framework of collective security. This approach was revolutionary at the time and represented an ambitious attempt to maintain global peace and stability through international cooperation and mutual respect for legal norms. The League of Nations, created in the aftermath of the First World War, had the primary objective of preventing new international conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy. With its emphasis on collective security, the idea was that the peace of one state was the concern of all member states, and that threats to peace should be managed collectively.

The protection of minority rights was an integral part of this framework. The underlying belief was that discrimination and abuse against minorities could lead to internal tensions, which in turn could spill over into international conflict. Thus, by ensuring that states respected the rights of all their populations, including minorities, the League of Nations sought to promote internal stability and, by extension, international peace. In practice, however, the League of Nations system of collective security encountered a number of obstacles. One of the greatest challenges was the lack of coercive enforcement mechanisms and the absence of participation by some key states, notably the United States. In addition, the rise of nationalism and totalitarian regimes between the wars undermined the League of Nations' efforts and ultimately led to its inability to prevent the Second World War. Despite these failures, the League of Nations' attempts to promote collective security and the protection of minorities laid the foundations for subsequent international systems of human rights and collective security, such as the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These initiatives benefited greatly from the lessons learned from the limitations and challenges faced by the League of Nations.

One of the most significant aspects of the treaties that emerged from the First World War is that they represent a first attempt to address issues of human rights and the protection of minorities at the international level. This approach was innovative for its time and marked a turning point in the way the international community approached these crucial issues. The stipulations contained in the Treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain-en-Laye and other similar agreements concerning the protection of minorities were pioneering initiatives in the field of international law. They introduced the idea that the protection of the rights of specific groups, in particular ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, was not only a matter of internal justice for States, but also a legitimate international concern.

These treaties recognised that post-conflict peace and stability could not be achieved simply through territorial adjustments or economic agreements. They also required attention to the rights and welfare of all citizens, particularly those most likely to be marginalised or oppressed in the new nation states. Although the application of these provisions was uneven and often insufficient, their inclusion in the treaties set an important precedent. It paved the way for subsequent developments in international law, including the creation of the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These early steps were essential in shaping the contemporary approach to human rights and the protection of minorities in international law.

Totalitarianism in the 20th century

To fully understand the major international texts on human rights, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, it is essential to consider the historical context in which they were drawn up, in particular the impact of totalitarian regimes in Europe and the tragedy of the Second World War.

The rise of totalitarianism in Europe between the wars, with regimes such as Nazism in Germany under Adolf Hitler, Fascism in Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Stalinism in the Soviet Union, represented a dark period in history. These regimes not only flouted fundamental human rights but also led to conflict and atrocities on an unprecedented scale, culminating in the Second World War. The brutality and horrors of this war, including the Holocaust, raised global awareness of the need to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, was a direct response to the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the Second World War. It aimed to establish a set of inalienable and universal rights guaranteeing dignity, freedom and equality for all human beings.

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights, which came into force in 1953, was a major initiative to promote and protect human rights in Europe. The creation of the European Court of Human Rights has provided an essential mechanism for ensuring respect for these rights at continental level. These documents and institutions are not only responses to the tragedies of the past; they also represent a collective recognition of the need for a solid legal and moral framework to prevent the recurrence of such events. In this way, the legacy of totalitarianism and the Second World War continues to profoundly influence our understanding and approach to human rights worldwide.

The totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, in particular Nazism in Germany, often promoted ideologies based on racial superiority, reducing the individual to a mere element within a defined "race". From this perspective, the value and existence of the individual is entirely subordinated to the interests and ideology of the state. One of the most dangerous aspects of totalitarianism is the notion that the state has absolute power over individuals, including the right to life and death. This has been manifest in the way totalitarian regimes have pursued policies of terror, repression and genocide. In this framework, the individual has no autonomy or intrinsic rights, but exists solely to serve the objectives of the state.

This annihilation of individualism and the imposition of absolute obedience to the state have had tragic consequences. Under the Nazi regime, for example, this ideology led to the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, as well as Roma, disabled people, political dissidents and other groups considered undesirable or inferior according to Nazi racist criteria. Totalitarianism, in all its forms, represents an extreme denial of the fundamental principles of human rights, in which the freedom, equality and dignity of the individual are completely flouted. Awareness of these horrors was a key driver in the development of international human rights law after the Second World War, in an effort to ensure that such atrocities never happened again.

The establishment of totalitarian regimes in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century is a significant chapter in contemporary history, not least because of the way in which these dictators came to power. This process, which took place in circumstances of political crisis or vulnerability, offers a crucial insight into how democratic structures can be manipulated or hijacked.

In Italy, the rise of Benito Mussolini is a striking example. After the Fascist March on Rome in October 1922, a show of force that threatened to degenerate into violent conflict, King Victor Emmanuel III decided to appoint Mussolini as head of government. This appointment, although made within the legal framework of the time, marked the beginning of the transformation of Italy into a Fascist state. Mussolini quickly consolidated his power, with the support of the Italian Parliament, which passed the laws necessary to legitimise his authority and establish a dictatorial regime. In Germany, Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933 was also achieved by legal means. Appointed Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg after a significant electoral success, Hitler was quick to use this position to erode the democracy of the Weimar Republic. The burning of the Reichstag in February 1933 provided Hitler with the ideal pretext to increase his powers and suppress the opposition, ultimately leading to the establishment of a Nazi dictatorship. In France, the case of Marshal Philippe Pétain illustrates another facet of this dynamic. Faced with the German advance in 1940 and the imminent defeat of France, Parliament, in a climate of national disarray, granted Pétain exceptional powers on 10 July 1940. These powers enabled him to set up the Vichy regime, an authoritarian state that collaborated with Nazi Germany. These historical examples highlight the fragility of democracies in the face of crises and internal or external threats. They show how, even in apparently stable societies, rights and freedoms can be rapidly eroded, and how authoritarian figures can exploit crisis situations to establish oppressive regimes. These events have served as fundamental lessons for future generations about the need to protect democracy and vigorously uphold the principles of human rights.

Once in power, totalitarian rulers in Europe used parliamentary institutions to gain extensive powers, thereby consolidating their dictatorial authority. This process is particularly evident in the case of Benito Mussolini in Italy, who succeeded in gradually transforming the political system to concentrate considerable power in his own hands. After being appointed President of the Council by King Victor Emmanuel III in 1922, Mussolini began to extend his influence over the Italian government. The decisive turning point came on 31 January 1926, when the Italian Parliament granted Mussolini extensive legislative powers. This decision marked a major step in the transformation of Italy into a Fascist state: from then on, no law could be introduced into Parliament without Mussolini's prior consent. In addition, Parliament authorised Mussolini to legislate by decree-law, allowing him to bypass traditional legislative processes. This concentration of power reduced the Italian Parliament to a mere recording chamber, stripped of its independent legislative role. As a result, Mussolini was able to strengthen his control over the Italian state and society, establishing a totalitarian regime characterised by a single party, a censored press and the suppression of all political opposition. This model, where a dictator uses parliament to increase his power, was repeated across various totalitarian regimes in Europe during this period. It illustrates how democratic institutions can be manipulated and transformed to serve authoritarian ends, underlining the crucial importance of safeguarding the principles of separation of powers and democratic control to prevent the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The totalitarian regimes established in Europe during the twentieth century are characterised by their absolute control over all structures of society, including information and the press, as well as by the domination of a single political party and the presence of an omnipresent police and repressive apparatus. These elements have become defining characteristics of totalitarian regimes, illustrating their total control over the lives of citizens. Control of information and the press was an essential tool for these regimes. By monopolising the media, dictators could propagate their ideology, censor any opposition and shape public opinion. For example, under the Nazi regime in Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, established rigorous control of the media, using radio, the press and the cinema to spread Nazi propaganda. Similarly, in Fascist Italy, Mussolini exercised tight control over the press, suppressing dissenting voices and promoting Fascist ideology.

The existence of a single party is another characteristic of totalitarian regimes. In these systems, a single political party dominated political life, often under the direction of a charismatic leader. This single party was not only an instrument of governance but also a means of social control, overseeing all aspects of life, from education to culture and the economy. These regimes also relied on a police and repressive apparatus to maintain their power. The Gestapo in Nazi Germany, the OVRA in Fascist Italy and the NKVD in the Stalinist Soviet Union are examples of secret organisations or state police used to monitor, intimidate and eliminate political opponents. These organisations were feared for their brutality and effectiveness in suppressing any form of dissent or resistance. Overall, these totalitarian regimes demonstrated an ability to control and manipulate almost every aspect of society, establishing systems where individual freedom was largely crushed in favour of the state. Their legacy is a sombre reminder of the dangers that concentration of power, censorship and repression pose to societies and to fundamental human rights.

The laws enacted by totalitarian regimes in Europe revealed their oppressive and, in some cases, openly racist nature. These laws gradually gutted the existing liberal constitutions, which were the result of two centuries of democratic and liberal development. In Germany, the Weimar Constitution of 1919, which had established a liberal democracy after the First World War, was systematically dismantled by the Nazi regime. The Enabling Act of 1933 is a striking example: this law gave Hitler and his government the power to legislate without the intervention of the Reichstag, paving the way for a total dictatorship. In addition, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 institutionalised racial discrimination, particularly against Jews, marking a turning point towards the regime's genocidal policy. In Italy, the 1848 constitution, known as "Il Statuto Albertino", had initially established a liberal constitutional framework. However, with the rise of Mussolini and the consolidation of the Fascist regime, this constitution was gradually eroded. Laws such as the Fascist Laws of 1925-1926 reinforced Mussolini's power, restricted civil liberties and transformed the political system into a one-party state. In France, the Vichy regime, under the leadership of Philippe Pétain, marked a radical break with the principles of the Third Republic, established by the Constitution of 1875. The laws enacted under Vichy, notably the Statute of the Jews and the full powers granted to Pétain, not only violated the republican principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, but also contributed to collaboration with Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews and other groups. These examples illustrate how totalitarian regimes not only repressed individual and political freedoms, but also set out to destroy the constitutional and legal foundations on which liberal societies were built. These actions had profound and lasting consequences, not only for the countries concerned, but also for global understanding of the importance of protecting human rights and preserving democratic institutions.

Constitutional recognition of fundamental rights from the end of the Second World War and its internationalisation

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Europe and the whole world were confronted with a horrifying realisation of the atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes. The discovery of concentration camps, genocides and numerous other massive human rights violations had a profound effect on public opinion in Europe. This awareness played a decisive role in mobilising people to promote and adopt a universal conception of human rights.

This period saw a radical change in international thinking on human rights. Previously, the rights of the individual had often been regarded as falling within the domestic jurisdiction of states, but the horrors of war clearly demonstrated the need for an international and universal standard to protect the fundamental rights of every individual. In response to these events, international initiatives were undertaken to establish a legal and moral framework to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. The creation of the United Nations in 1945 was central to these efforts. One of the first and most important achievements of the UN was the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This document, although not legally binding, established for the first time a list of inalienable fundamental rights, applicable to all peoples and all nations. It represented a common ideal for all members of the human community.

In Europe, the desire to guarantee the protection of human rights also led to the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950, an international treaty designed to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. The Convention also established the European Court of Human Rights, providing a mechanism for legal redress for individuals who consider themselves to be victims of human rights violations by a member state. In this way, the reaction to the monstrosities of war was a powerful driving force for the development and affirmation of a universal conception of human rights, marking a turning point in global governance and the protection of individual rights. These developments have underlined the crucial importance of international solidarity and shared responsibility for protecting the dignity and rights of every individual.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The European concept of human rights, as it developed after the Second World War, marks the culmination of a long Western tradition of defending human rights. This tradition, which began with various declarations of rights throughout history, took on a crucial new dimension after the horrors of totalitarianism. It was no longer just a matter of proclaiming human rights, but also of guaranteeing their respect and application. This need for guarantees led to the creation of judicial mechanisms capable of enforcing these rights. In this context, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, and the creation of the European Court of Human Rights were major milestones. The Convention not only reaffirmed fundamental rights but also established a legal system for their protection. Individuals could now lodge complaints against a Member State with the European Court of Human Rights for alleged violations of their rights enshrined in the Convention.

This legal framework made human rights justiciable, i.e. capable of being invoked and defended before a court. The possibility of having recourse to a supranational court to deal with human rights violations represents significant progress. It has not only strengthened the protection of these rights at individual level, but has also contributed to the establishment of consistent legal standards and practices across Europe. The establishment of these judicial mechanisms is a direct response to the shortcomings observed during the period of totalitarian regimes, when fundamental rights were flouted without any possibility of appeal. The ability to appeal to an international court to challenge violations of human rights therefore represents a fundamental change in the way these rights are perceived and protected, embodying the idea that they are not just ideal principles, but applicable and enforceable standards.

In response to the tragedies of totalitarianism and the Second World War, many European countries revised or drafted their constitutions to include specific jurisdictional mechanisms to guarantee fundamental rights. This development marks a crucial shift from the mere proclamation of rights to their effective guarantee, a process that first developed at national level before extending to supranational systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

As part of these constitutional reforms, several European states have introduced constitutional courts or similar judicial mechanisms with the explicit power to review the conformity of laws with the fundamental rights set out in the constitution. For example, Germany created the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in 1951, a key institution for the protection of constitutional rights. In Italy, the Corte Costituzionale, established in 1948, performs a similar function. These judicial institutions play an essential role in reviewing the constitutionality of laws and government acts, ensuring that fundamental rights are not just recognised in theory, but actively protected and implemented. They provide citizens with a legal remedy in the event that their rights are violated by the State, thereby strengthening respect for the rule of law and the protection of individual freedoms.

Beyond the national framework, the creation of the European Court of Human Rights offers an additional level of legal protection. Citizens of Council of Europe member states can bring their cases before this Court after exhausting all domestic remedies, thus ensuring transnational monitoring and application of human rights in Europe. This move towards mechanisms for guaranteeing rights at national and supranational level represents a concrete response to the challenges posed by totalitarian regimes and a major step forward in the protection of human rights. It underlines the importance of robust and independent legal systems for safeguarding fundamental rights and preserving democracy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, represents a fundamental step in the promotion of a universal conception of fundamental rights. This document, conceived in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War, aims to establish a framework of human rights common to all peoples and all nations, transcending borders and cultural differences. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was revolutionary in several respects. It set out a series of fundamental rights and freedoms that should be protected and respected worldwide, affirming principles such as equality, dignity, freedom, justice and peace. For the first time, a document sought to define human rights in a global way, addressing humanity as a whole. However, it is important to note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, is not legally binding. It establishes ideal standards and principles but does not in itself have the mechanisms for application or sanction. It does not create judicial bodies to enforce these rights, and its application depends on the will and commitment of the Member States.

In Europe, the response to this need for legal guarantee mechanisms took the form of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, which established the European Court of Human Rights. This court provides a legal remedy for individuals who consider themselves to be victims of violations of the rights set out in the Convention by one of the member states. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays the ideological and moral foundations for the protection of human rights worldwide, other instruments and institutions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, are needed to guarantee and apply these rights in a concrete and legally binding manner.

Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a regional mechanism for guaranteeing and penalising violations of fundamental rights. Adopted in 1950 and brought into force in 1953, the European Convention on Human Rights represents a milestone in the legal protection of human rights in Europe. The Convention, which includes many Council of Europe member states, sets out a series of fundamental rights and freedoms. It goes beyond simply proclaiming these rights by establishing a binding legal system to guarantee them. The key mechanism in this system is the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg.

The European Court of Human Rights provides a judicial remedy for individuals who believe that their rights, as set out in the Convention, have been violated by one of the member states. Individuals may bring their case to the Court after exhausting all domestic remedies in their country. If the Court finds a violation, it can order the State concerned to take measures to remedy the situation, including, in some cases, the payment of damages to the victim. This guarantee mechanism is of vital importance because it ensures that the human rights commitments made by States are not merely theoretical or declaratory, but are implemented and respected. The European Convention on Human Rights and its Court therefore represent an effective regional model for the legal protection of human rights, having a significant impact on human rights standards and their application in Europe.

The European Convention on Human Rights, although a regional instrument, has played a key role in the development of an international concept of fundamental rights. Adopted in 1950 and brought into force in 1953, it marked a milestone in the history of human rights, establishing not only a catalogue of rights and freedoms to be protected but also a binding legal mechanism for their implementation. It is important to note that, chronologically, the European Convention on Human Rights came after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was the first document to declare fundamental rights on a global scale. The Universal Declaration, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, laid the conceptual and moral foundations for human rights on an international scale, although it was not binding.

The European Convention on Human Rights built on this foundation by creating a binding legal framework for the member states of the Council of Europe. It was a major step forward in the protection of human rights, as it established a court - the European Court of Human Rights - where individuals can bring complaints against states for violations of the rights set out in the Convention. Although the Convention is regional in scope, its impact on the international conception of human rights has been profound. It has served as a model for other regional human rights treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. In addition, the Convention has helped to reinforce the idea that human rights must be protected by binding legal mechanisms, not only at national level, but also through regional and international legal systems.

It is important to clarify the relationship between the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights as regards the mechanism for guaranteeing fundamental rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, established for the first time a universal list of fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the Declaration, as a document of the United Nations General Assembly, was not legally binding. Instead, it served as a declaration of common ideals, establishing a moral and ethical framework for human rights, but without providing any mechanism for legal guarantees or remedies in the event of violations.

The European Convention on Human Rights, signed in 1950, was inspired by the principles set out in the Universal Declaration, but went further by establishing a binding legal framework for the member states of the Council of Europe. The Convention created a specific guarantee mechanism - the European Court of Human Rights - where individuals can lodge complaints against member states for violations of the rights set out in the Convention. This mechanism offers a legal remedy to victims of human rights violations, which was a major advance on the Universal Declaration. In short, although the European Convention on Human Rights was influenced by the principles and ideals of the 1948 Universal Declaration, the guarantee mechanism - a key innovation of the Convention - was born with it in 1950 and was not present in the 1948 Declaration. The Convention transformed these ideals into legally binding obligations for Member States, marking a milestone in the development of international human rights law.

The 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

It is essential to understand that, although the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are closely linked in their objective of promoting fundamental rights, the specific guarantee mechanism established by the Convention does not have its direct origins in the 1948 Declaration. However, it can be said that the Universal Declaration laid the conceptual and moral foundations that influenced the creation of the European Convention and its guarantee mechanism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, was a direct response to the horrors of the Second World War and marked a historic turning point in the international recognition of human rights. It proclaimed a series of fundamental rights and freedoms that were to be respected universally, but without establishing a binding legal framework to guarantee them.

The European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, was influenced by the principles set out in the Universal Declaration, but broke new ground by introducing a binding legal mechanism for the member states of the Council of Europe. The creation of the European Court of Human Rights provided a legal remedy for individuals who suffered violations of the rights set out in the Convention. Thus, although the European Convention on Human Rights was influenced by the spirit and principles of the Universal Declaration, its specific guarantee mechanism - the possibility for individuals to bring complaints before an international court - is an innovation of its own. It represents a significant evolution in the protection of human rights, marking the transition from an ideal proclamation of rights to their concrete implementation and application at regional level. This evolution is the result of a historical process that began well before the end of the 19th century, but which found its concrete culmination after the Second World War with the establishment of regional legal systems for the protection of human rights.

The European Convention on Human Rights represents a regional manifestation of the importance attached to the protection of fundamental rights, similar to that observed in the national constitutions of European countries. However, the Convention goes beyond simply proclaiming these rights by establishing a specific jurisdictional system to guarantee them, namely the European Court of Human Rights. This judicial institution is a crucial element of the Convention, as it provides a redress mechanism for individuals or entities who believe that their rights, as set out in the Convention, have been violated by a Member State. The Court has the power to rule on such cases and, if a violation is found, to sanction the State responsible. This ability to sanction violations represents a major advance on previous human rights declarations and conventions, which did not have such strong enforcement mechanisms.

The fact that the European Convention on Human Rights includes such a jurisdictional mechanism is no coincidence, but rather the reflection of an evolution in legal and political thinking at European level, influenced by national experiences. At national level, many European countries revised their constitutions or passed new laws after the Second World War to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights, often by establishing constitutional courts or other judicial mechanisms to monitor the conformity of laws and government actions with constitutional rights. This trend towards legally guaranteeing fundamental rights at national level was a prelude to the establishment of similar mechanisms at regional level, as is the case with the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the Convention and its Court represent not only an extension of the principles of human rights protection beyond national borders, but also a concretisation of the idea that such rights require effective legal protections and redress mechanisms to be truly guaranteed.

By guaranteeing human rights, the European Convention on Human Rights marks the culmination of a process that has its roots in the development of constitutional law at national level in Europe. This process was characterised by a gradual move towards the recognition and legal protection of fundamental rights in the constitutions of European states.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many European countries adopted or revised their constitutions to explicitly include fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights were initially considered primarily in a national context, with the idea that constitutions served to limit the power of the state and protect citizens against abuses of that power. Constitutional rights often included civil and political liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, and protection against arbitrary detention. The Second World War, however, with its massive and systematic violations of human rights, demonstrated the need for protection of human rights beyond national borders and for recognition of these rights within an international legal framework. The European Convention on Human Rights has responded to this need. By establishing not only a list of rights to be respected by the Member States, but also by creating the European Court of Human Rights to guarantee these rights, the Convention extended the protection of human rights from the national to the regional level. The European Convention on Human Rights can be seen as the result of a maturing and extension of the concept of constitutional rights. It symbolises the transition from a predominantly national approach to the protection of human rights to a more global one, underlining the importance of a supranational legal framework to effectively guarantee these fundamental rights.

The European Convention on Human Rights represents a crucial milestone in the process of recognising and guaranteeing human rights, not only at national level, but also at international, or in this case regional, level. Prior to the creation of the Convention, the protection of human rights was seen primarily as the responsibility of individual States, reflected in their national constitutions and laws. However, the Second World War revealed the limits of this approach, showing that human rights violations could occur on a massive and systematic scale, and that national mechanisms might be insufficient or non-existent to prevent or punish them. In response, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, marked an important stage in the evolution of human rights protection, by placing them in a regional framework. It established a common set of standards for fundamental rights and freedoms that all Council of Europe member states undertook to respect and protect. Most importantly, it created the European Court of Human Rights, providing a judicial mechanism to guarantee these rights and provide a remedy in the event of their violation.

This development was significant because it extended the scope of human rights protection beyond national borders, recognising the need for a more global approach to deal effectively with human rights issues. The Convention and its Court have thus set a precedent for other regional and international initiatives to protect and promote human rights, reinforcing the idea that these rights transcend national borders and must be guaranteed within an international legal framework.

The post-war constitutions of a number of European states

France, as the birthplace of many of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, has played a historically significant role in the formulation and promotion of human rights. After the Second World War, France set about drafting a new constitution. The Constitution of the Fourth Republic was adopted in 1946, succeeding the Third Republic which had been abolished following the German invasion and the establishment of the Vichy regime. In the preamble to the 1946 Constitution, France solemnly reaffirmed the rights of Man and the Citizen as defined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a founding document of the French Revolution. This preamble underlined France's commitment to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and recognised the importance of social and economic rights, reflecting the evolution of ideas about human rights since the 18th century.

In 1958, a new constitution was adopted, establishing the Fifth Republic, which is still in force today. The preamble to the 1958 Constitution explicitly includes that of 1946, as well as the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, thus consolidating these texts as the legal foundations of rights and freedoms in France. These constitutions and their preambles illustrate the continuity and evolution of the concept of human rights in France. They also show how the principles of the French Revolution have continued to influence French legal and political thought, and by extension, the development of human rights internationally.

The Italian Constitution of 1947, adopted in the wake of the Second World War and the fall of Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime, represents a crucial moment in Italy's constitutional history and in the recognition of fundamental rights. It marks a clear contrast with the Fascist era, reaffirming democratic principles and establishing a list of fundamental rights and freedoms for citizens. In this Constitution, fundamental rights are not only proclaimed as rights, but are also framed as duties of the citizen, thus underlining the interdependence between rights and responsibilities within society. This approach reflects a conception of human rights that recognises that the full enjoyment of individual rights is intrinsically linked to a commitment to the common good and social solidarity.

Among the rights and duties set out in the Italian Constitution are provisions relating to personal freedom, freedom of expression, the right to work, the right to education, and equality before the law, as well as commitments to social protection, economic well-being and political participation. These provisions reflect a commitment to both a liberal and social vision of human rights, incorporating civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The 1947 Constitution thus played a fundamental role in Italy's democratic recovery from the Fascist period, and contributed to the establishment of a solid framework for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in Italy. It was also an important element in the wider post-war movement in Europe to strengthen human rights, both at national level and in the context of regional cooperation such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

The German constitution, known as the Grundgesetz (Basic Law), adopted in 1949, places a strong emphasis on fundamental rights. The constitution was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War, a period when Germany was both anxious to rebuild and determined to break with the legacy of the Nazi regime. The Grundgesetz is notable for its first section, which lists a series of fundamental rights. These rights include human dignity, the right to personal freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of belief and conscience, equality before the law, and the right to education. These provisions reflect a direct response to the atrocities and human rights violations committed under the Nazi regime. One of the most fundamental principles of the Grundgesetz is respect for and protection of human dignity, which is set out in its very first article. This emphasis on human dignity is a distinctive feature of the German Constitution and forms the basis on which all other fundamental rights are built.

The German Basic Law also established a robust constitutional system with an independent judiciary, including the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). This court plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights, ensuring that the actions of the legislative and executive powers comply with constitutional provisions. Germany's Basic Law represents not only a rejection of past totalitarian ideologies, but also a deep commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights, making a significant contribution to the understanding and protection of fundamental rights in Europe and around the world.

These countries, having directly suffered or witnessed the disastrous consequences of totalitarian regimes, have built mechanisms into their constitutions to reaffirm and protect fundamental rights, while putting in place procedures to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. A crucial aspect of these measures is constitutional review. In France, constitutionality review was introduced by the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution, and developed further with the creation of the Constitutional Council in 1958, under the Fifth Republic. The role of the Conseil Constitutionnel is to verify the conformity of laws with the Constitution. Initially, its role was limited to a priori control (before laws were promulgated), but it has expanded over time. In Italy, the Constitutional Court, established by the 1947 Constitution, plays a similar role. It is responsible for judging the conformity of laws with the Constitution, thus providing an effective mechanism for protecting constitutional rights and preventing abuses of power. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), established by the Basic Law of 1949, is the supreme body of constitutional control. It plays a crucial role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that legislative and executive acts comply with the Constitution. Article 19 of the Basic Law guarantees the right to legal recourse in the event of a violation of fundamental rights by the State.

These constitutional control systems play a crucial role in protecting human rights and preserving democracy. They ensure that the laws and actions of public authorities do not violate the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in constitutions. This is a direct response to totalitarian experiences, where the laws and actions of the State were often in flagrant contradiction with the principles of human rights and justice. Constitutionality review is therefore an essential part of the legal framework designed to prevent a return to authoritarian regimes and to guarantee respect for fundamental freedoms.

Constitutionality review is an important safeguard against potential abuses of legislative power, including the risk of adopting laws that could infringe individual freedoms. In a democratic system, Parliament is the body that represents the will of the people and has the power to make laws. However, this power is not absolute. The idea that "the power to do everything does not give the right to do everything" reflects the principle that even the will of the majority, expressed through legislation, must respect certain fundamental standards, in particular human rights and constitutional principles. Constitutionality review introduces a dimension of legal oversight of the legislative process. This control, often exercised by a constitutional court or constitutional council, means that laws passed by parliament can be examined to see whether they comply with the constitution, which is a country's supreme legal document. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it can be annulled or amended to comply with constitutional norms.

This practice can be seen as a restriction on the sovereignty of the people, insofar as a judicial institution has the power to reject or modify decisions taken by elected representatives. However, it is also seen as an essential safeguard against the despotism of the majority and a protection against the adoption of laws that could violate fundamental rights. Constitutionality review therefore serves to balance two fundamental aspects of a democracy: respect for the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, and protection of the individual rights and freedoms that lie at the heart of the democratic conception of justice and the rule of law. This balance is crucial to preventing abuses of power and maintaining a fair and equitable political system.

In France, the Constitutional Council plays an important role in maintaining the balance between respect for popular sovereignty, as expressed by Parliament, and protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The role of the Constitutional Council is to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament comply with the Constitution. This includes ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are respected. However, it is essential that the Constitutional Council confines itself to this regulatory role and does not replace the legislator, i.e. Parliament, which represents the will of the people. In other words, the Constitutional Council generally only intervenes when questions of constitutional conformity are raised, and its decisions are based on the interpretation of constitutional texts rather than on political or ideological considerations. This approach aims to maintain a delicate balance between the protection of rights and the preservation of representative democracy.

The idea that the constitutional court should only intervene in cases of flagrant violation of fundamental rights is an important principle for avoiding excessive interference in the legislative process. This reflects respect for the principle of the separation of powers, which is a cornerstone of democratic systems. The separation of powers ensures that each branch of government - executive, legislative and judicial - has its own responsibilities and prerogatives, and prevents the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of any one branch. The French system, as well as other systems that adopt constitutionality review, illustrate the constant attempt by democracies to strike the right balance between respect for the will of the people and the protection of fundamental rights, a challenge that lies at the heart of modern democratic governance.

The law, as the expression of the general will, plays a central role in the governance of a society. However, it is not absolute and must operate within the limits set by the Constitution, which is the supreme norm of a country. The Constitution, as the founding document and principal legal framework of a state, proclaims and protects fundamental rights and individual freedoms. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. In a democracy, it is essential that all laws passed by Parliament comply with these constitutional principles. Constitutional review is the instrument that ensures this. It is a process whereby constitutional courts or councils assess whether laws passed by the legislature comply with the provisions of the Constitution. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it may be annulled or amended. This mechanism is fundamental to maintaining the balance of power and protecting citizens from laws that might otherwise infringe their rights and freedoms. By ensuring that laws respect fundamental rights, constitutionality review plays a crucial role in preserving the rule of law and protecting democratic principles. It is an essential safeguard against the abuse of power and ensures that, even within the framework of the will of the majority, individual rights are not trampled underfoot. Thus, constitutionality review is not only an effective instrument for guaranteeing fundamental rights at national level, but also a cornerstone of contemporary democratic systems.

Article 6 of the French Declaration of Human Rights states that the law is the expression of the general will, as opposed to the law of the Ancien Régime, which emanated from the sovereign, i.e. the king. With this notion of law described in 1789, which is no longer the expression of the monarch, the law emanating from the general will can no longer be oppressive. This article marks a significant break with the previous conception of the law under the Ancien Régime, where the law was seen as the expression of the will of the sovereign, i.e. the king.

Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states that: "The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to participate personally, or through their representatives, in its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens being equal in its eyes are equally eligible for all public dignities, positions and jobs, according to their ability, and without any distinction other than that of their virtues and talents". This new conception of the law reflects a profound philosophical and political change. By declaring that the law is the expression of the general will, the Declaration lays the foundations for a legal system based on the principles of popular sovereignty and equality before the law. The law is no longer a tool at the service of the monarch, but an instrument at the service of the people, drawn up by their elected representatives and applicable equally to all citizens. This idea that the law, emanating from the general will, cannot be oppressive is central to the thinking of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. It suggests that, since the law is created by and for the people, it must necessarily work for the common good and respect individual rights and freedoms. Of course, history has shown that even laws created by elected representatives can be oppressive if they go unchecked or violate fundamental principles of justice and human rights. This is why constitutionality review and the protection of fundamental rights, as discussed above, have become essential components of modern democracies to ensure that laws respect and protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens.

The evolution of human rights protection over the course of the twentieth century highlights an important reality: the recognition that elected representatives of the people, while necessary for a functioning democracy, are not always sufficient to protect and guarantee human rights. The tragic experiences of the Second World War highlighted the limits of political systems where fundamental rights could be violated, even in democratic states, in the absence of appropriate checks and balances. This realisation led to a reassessment of the role of the judiciary in protecting human rights. After the war, many countries set up or strengthened national judicial bodies responsible for ensuring the protection of fundamental rights. These bodies, such as constitutional courts or constitutional councils, have been given the power to scrutinise laws passed by parliament to ensure that they comply with the Constitution and the human rights principles it enshrines.

This development marks the "advent of judges" in the role of guarantors of fundamental rights. Their function is to state the law, i.e. to interpret and apply the law in such a way as to protect individual rights and freedoms. This implies a certain restriction of the sovereignty of the people, in the sense that laws, even if passed by democratically elected representatives, are subject to review and approval by the judiciary. This development is not a diminution of democracy, but rather its maturation. It reflects the understanding that democracy is not only the government of the people, but also a system in which the rights of each individual are protected and guaranteed, even against the will of the majority. Constitutional review and judicial protection of fundamental rights have therefore become essential elements of modern democratic systems, ensuring that laws and government actions respect the fundamental principles on which these systems are based.

Annexes

References