This article has been written with the aim of explaining the theoretical foundations and practical functions of the theory of balancing and its threefold tests in the field of public law and human rights. The main research question is whether the three-stage conflict-resolution model in the theory of balancing—consisting of the tests of suitability, necessity, and proportionality (in the narrow sense)—can provide a valid and rational framework for assessing the legitimacy of governmental interventions in individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and its data have been collected and analyzed through the study of documents, laws, and judicial practices at both domestic and international levels, especially in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court of Canada, the German Federal Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The research findings show that the theory of balancing, unlike rigid and absolute approaches in legal adjudication, offers a flexible, dynamic, and context-oriented model for resolving conflicts between individual rights and collective interests. According to this theory, the restriction of fundamental rights is justified when, first, it pursues a legitimate and lawful aim; second, the chosen means and measures are necessary and represent the least harmful way to achieve that aim; and third, there exists a reasonable and fair balance between the extent of the interference and the importance of the intended objective. The examination of judicial examples shows that these three tests, by assessing all relevant considerations on a case-by-case basis, have provided a coherent foundation for fair adjudication between individual freedoms and public interests.
Accordingly, the research concludes that the theory of balancing and its threefold tests—based on the principles of rationality, fairness, and balance—not only serve as effective instruments for evaluating the legitimacy and reasonableness of governmental interventions in human rights, but also, through analyzing the relationship between individual rights and public interest, play an essential and reliable role in fulfilling the requirements of protecting individual rights and freedoms as well as the obligations of safeguarding collective interests.