Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T09:31:26.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality, by Andrew Legg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 264pp) (£70 paperback). ISBN 0199650453.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou*
University of Surrey


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Book Review
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


141 Brighton Declaration 2012, available at

142 See eg Benvenisti, EMargin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards’ (1999) 31 Journal of International Law and Politics 843 Google Scholar; Letsas, GTwo concepts of the margin of appreciation’ (2006) 26 Ojls 705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Legg, A The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p 58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 Ibid, p 18.

145 For more examples, see ibid, pp 18–23.

146 Ibid, p 195.

147 S and Marper v the United Kingdom [2009] 48 EHRR 50 at [102].

148 Legg, above n 3, p 217.

149 Ibid, p 36.

150 Bakircioglu, OThe application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in freedom of expression and public morality cases’ (2007) 8 Glj 711 at 712Google Scholar.

151 Gross, O and Ní Aoláin, FFrom discretion to scrutiny: revisiting the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in the context of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2001) 23 Hum Rts Q 625 at 627CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lester, LordUniversality versus subsidiarity: a reply’ (1998) Ehrlr 73 at 7576 Google Scholar.

152 See, K Dzehtsiarou ‘Does consensus matter? Legitimacy of European consensus in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2011) Pl 534.

153 Legg, above n 3, p 116.