Document Type : Original Article
Author
Ph.D, Faculty of Law & Political Sciences, Islamic Azad University: Science & Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. Mohsenmarhouni@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction
This paper is both research-oriented and applied, aiming to systematically analyze the issue of semantic instability in legal language and its implications for the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The central research question is how the structural features of legal language and various methods of judicial interpretation, in conjunction with different socio-cultural contexts, lead to the deferral of meaning, polysemy, and interpretive contradictions, and how these phenomena affect legal certainty, predictability, and the realization of justice. The specific objectives of the research are: identifying the linguistic and institutional mechanisms that cause instability in fundamental concepts; analyzing the involvement of social and political mechanisms in the selection of judicial meanings; and proposing institutionalizable solutions to mitigate the negative effects of semantic instability on the coherence of judicial practice; therefore, it is expected that the results will both enrich theorization about the nature of semantic instability and provide practical suggestions for reforming judicial practice. However, this paper also acknowledges its methodological limitations—including its focus on a selected set of judgments that may overlook other aspects of judicial practice—and emphasizes the need for complementary empirical studies to test the impact of institutional proposals. Ultimately, the research seeks to offer a balanced framework that both preserves the necessary flexibility for adapting interpretations to new social demands and, through clarifying interpretive criteria and strengthening institutional oversight, enhances the predictability and coherence of judicial practice; an outcome that will contribute to improving the legitimacy and effectiveness of the protection of fundamental rights.
Methods
The present study employs a mixed analytical-critical approach. The sources examined include selected judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (cases such as S.A.S. v. France, Baka v. Hungary, Lautsi v. Italy, KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Almeida v. Portugal), as well as relevant theoretical texts (works by Jacques Derrida, H. L. A. Hart, Peter Goodrich, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and other scholars). Qualitative data were extracted through a full textual analysis of the judgments; this process involved careful rereading of the texts, coding of linguistic propositions influencing interpretation, tracing chains of reasoning, and conducting a comparative analysis of interpretive patterns. The analysis combined deconstruction to reveal internal contradictions within the texts and legal hermeneutics to understand their historical-cultural contexts, thereby enabling the simultaneous examination of hidden layers of meaning and contextual exigencies.
Results and Discussion
The findings of this study indicate that semantic instability is a multi-causal and multifaceted phenomenon arising from the interaction of linguistic, institutional, and social elements. First, legal texts, through the use of open-ended vocabulary and general concepts, create conditions for the production of multiple and sometimes inconsistent interpretations; this structural ambiguity compels judges to fill conceptual gaps and select meanings. Second, national cultural, historical, and political contexts have a decisive influence on interpretive orientations; the same concept may acquire different meanings and legal consequences across diverse contexts. Third, legal institutions and actors (states, civil institutions, think tanks) play a guiding role in shaping meaning by presenting evidence, policy arguments, and sociological materials. Fourth, doctrines and practices such as the “margin of appreciation” have a dual function: on one hand, they allow interpretations to adapt to national realities; on the other, they can justify extensive divergences and reduce the coherence of judicial practice. Comparative analysis of the cases revealed that instances such as Lautsi (religious symbols), S.A.S. (full-face covering), and Baka (judicial reforms and judicial independence) clearly illustrate the overlap between open legal language, socio-political pressures, and institutional choices. Furthermore, the study shows that in some judgments, the Court has relied on social evidence and national statistics to justify particular readings—an approach that extends the disciplinary boundaries of law into interdisciplinary domains and transforms concepts from abstract frameworks into functional ones. The practical implications of this condition include, on the one hand, a decrease in predictability, a risk of inequality in access to rights, and the erosion of public trust; and, on the other hand, the potential for the gradual development of law in response to emerging challenges such as environmental issues, technology, and cultural diversity. Overall, the findings indicate that semantic stability in law is not a fixed matter but rather the result of a balance between linguistic precision and social exigencies. The more consciously the relationship between legal language and its cultural context is managed, the greater the possibility of achieving fairer and more coherent interpretations, thereby strengthening the legitimacy of judicial institutions.
Conclusion
The overall conclusion is that semantic instability in legal language is an inevitable yet manageable phenomenon. It presents both challenges to predictability and coherence of judicial practice and opportunities for expanding human rights concepts in response to new issues. To reduce its negative effects and strengthen interpretive coherence, three practical measures are proposed: 1.Formulation of clear and transparent interpretive principles at the Court level, including criteria for defining the scope of key concepts and the obligation to explain interpretive choices. 2.Establishment of monitoring and analytical mechanisms—such as jurisprudential analysis units or comparative working groups—to track coherence and interpretive trends and to publish periodic reports. 3.Requirement to include contextual analytical sections in judgments that demonstrate how cultural, historical, and social factors have influenced interpretive choices. Implementing these measures can, while preserving the necessary flexibility for law to adapt to changing realities, prevent uncontrolled fragmentation in interpretation and enhance the predictability of judicial practice. Furthermore, the findings of the study indicate that managing semantic instability requires acknowledging it as a natural part of the dynamism of legal language, rather than merely a flaw within the interpretive system. In this regard, enhancing the linguistic and interpretive literacy of judges, promoting dialogue between national and international institutions, and expanding interdisciplinary studies in the field of legal linguistics can play a decisive role. Ultimately, the main goal is not to eliminate instability, but to guide it consciously toward the realization of justice, institutional coherence, and semantic dynamism within the framework of human rights
Highlights
- The semantic instability of legal language is both a challenge to judicial predictability and an opportunity for innovation in the interpretation of human rights.
- The continuous rethinking of legal concepts in light of socio-cultural contexts is the key to sustainable justice and adaptation to contemporary challenges.
- This article, using a Derridean deconstructive approach, reveals the internal contradictions of fundamental concepts in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and proposes three practical solutions.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)