States defended birching by appealing to tradition and fixed treaty standards

Evidence

The UK’s response — both the UK Government’s position and the Isle of Man’s argument — rested on two claims. First: that judicial birching, as practiced in the Isle of Man, was a traditional and accepted form of punishment that did not reach the threshold of “degrading” as required by Article 3. Second: that the Convention should be interpreted in light of the standards current at the time of its drafting, not in light of evolving contemporary standards — and that in 1950, judicial birching was not considered degrading by most European states. — , The Rod and the Child, 9136

Categorization

• XREF: The originalist-vs-living-instrument debate parallels the US constitutional originalism debate. — connects to: Appeal to tradition may be legitimate within constitutional law — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1068; Treaties with chiefs made customary law the federation’s common law

Broader Connections

• Appeal to tradition may be legitimate within constitutional law #exemplifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1068
• Treaties with chiefs made customary law the federation’s common law #expands (0.60)