ABSTRACT
This article compares the application of the right to private and family life across different human rights jurisdictions. It chooses instances of “convergence” (that is, situations that fall under the purview of this right for all jurisdictions) and of “divergence” (situations that fall under the right for some jurisdictions, but under a different right in others). Through this exercise, the article demonstrates how the similarity in the language of the relevant treaties influences treaty application for the “easy” cases, but how, when faced with a “hard” case, a human rights jurisdiction is more likely to follow its own path, which is often more attuned to the legal sensitivities around the implementing body. Therefore, while at the same time institutional fragmentation is avoided in the instances of convergence, the hegemonic tendencies of international human rights law as a European project are also skirted, as seen in the “divergence” cases.
