{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022022022022022022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001001001001001001, 'mean_word_length': 5.0606060606060606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Common Principles as a Project and a Teaching Method

One of the outstanding examples of a growing common law of Europe is the area of ‘European’ human rights. Many common concepts have been developed on the basis of, in particular, the European Convention of Human Rights which have subsequently found their way into domestic legal orders. There is an abundance of examples to be given of common concepts that have been imposed on the contracting-states: the proportionality principle; the principle that the Convention contains effective and not illusory rights; the concept of positive obligations; the principle of the rule of law; the notion that conflict­ ing rights and interests have to be balanced in a fair manner; the requirement that fair procedures must exist in order to provide adequate protection; etc. One of the elements of this development has been the Court’s reliance on the comparative method, which I have called the reliance upon the ‘consensus-principle’ of interpretation.1