UK human rights organisations and constitution politics Essay

Legal Sources of the UK Human Rights Organisations and Constitution Politics Essay. The enactment of the Human Rights Act was one of the many objective features in the New Labour’s 1997 election manifesto. The proposal to implement the Act was also part of a much broader program of constitutional reforms. The statute, which entered into force in 2000, implements the European Convention on Human Rights, political votes at dewforpolitics.com. According to Lord Lester of Herne Hill the Human Rights Act 1998:

Here is the article to explain, Legal Sources of the UK Human Rights Organisations and Constitution Law Politics Essay!

Explain how the UK Human Rights Act 1998 has changed the approach to the protection of human rights in the law of England and Wales in organisations. Has the change been for the better or the worse? “declares basic rights and freedoms inherent in our common humanity, and the ethical values of a modern democratic society governed under the rule of law; a society in which individual and minority rights must protect against the tyranny of majorities and the abuse of public powers, especially where excessive means use to pursue legitimate ends. The Act provides an ethical framework to guide lawmakers, judges, and individual people of all”.

However, as will show below the changes brought on by the Act have not always existed considered positive.

Before it entered into force the Act received a lot of negative media coverage. Concerns existed raised about widespread abuses of the immigration procedures as well as the welfare system. There were also fears that the Act would force judges to disregard Acts of Parliament by doing. So undermine the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. Yet, as the subsequent events have shown most of these concerns proved misplaced. The unease about statutory interpretation was mainly due to section 3 which provides that. Whenever possible, legislation must enforce consistently with the Convention. Section 4 adds that in cases where such interpretation is not possible, the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration does not overrule any provisions but merely states that the law does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Human Rights 01;

The Act led to increased protection for the rights of individuals, e.g. in Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones v Hello! the Court of Appeal recognized the right to privacy. Another notable example of human rights protection is the decision in Mendoza v Ghaidan. In this case, the protected Rent Act tenant passed away. The court stood asked to consider the law of succession. The surviving homosexual partner should have the same rights as he would have had if the couple was heterosexual.

The case is significant for several reasons: firstly, the court held that discrimination was unlawful. Secondly, it shows that the Human Rights Act applies both to public and private bodies. And thirdly the court interpreted the Rent Act 1977 broadly enough to give effect to the Convention rights. In the opinion of Lord Lester of Herne Hill Mendoza existed correctly decided. He even praised the decision for upholding constitutional rights which include equal treatment.

Despite what has stood said above the Act is also known to have its opponents. The decision in R (Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department proved particularly contentious; and, it has been a subject of severe ministerial criticism. The court held that firstly, the Home Secretary must support asylum-seekers; and secondly, the Home Office acted in breach of Article 6. Article 6, which grants a right to a free trial, stood violated when the applicants existed refused to have their circumstances assessed on an individual basis; moreover, they stood not allowed to appeal. In response to this decision the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said:

Human Rights 02;

“If public policy can exist always overridden by individual challenge through the courts, then democracy itself is under threat”.

In Alconbury Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions Lord Hoffmann was equally disapproving of the way the case law has been developing; he that although the UK Human Rights Act was meant to reinforce the rule of law it reinforced the ‘rule of lawyers’ instead in organisations.

September 11 gave rise to many contentious legal issues, UK human rights, terrorism, extradition, and prohibition of torture are now hotly debated. Some of the problems stem from the fact that newly granted civil liberties exist counter-balanced by measures introduced on the grounds of national security; hence the Terrorism Act, which came into force on 13 April 2006, prohibits the ’glorification’ of terrorism. The ’glorification’ of terrorism is now a criminal offense and applies to speech; as well as membership in political and non-political groups.

There is a possibility that the provisions of the Act will conflict with the rights guaranteed by the UK Human Rights Act 1998. Future challenges are likely to be based on Article 10 which guarantees freedom of speech and expression in organisations. It is yet to see what will be the effect of the Act and how it will interpret. Another issue that has become particularly contentious is extradition.

Human Rights 03;

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 does not contain any provisions prohibiting extradition in organisations. However it does impose some conditions, the person who is being extradited should not be subject to torture or inhuman treatment.

Finally, can it stand said that following the implementation of the Human Rights Act the protection of human rights has improved or, on the contrary, worsened? It seems that there is no ’right’ answer to this question. As has been shown above, ministers can be very critical of the way the Act interpret while the judiciary appears very enthusiastic. Nonetheless, UK human rights are now an integral and written, part of the British constitution. The Act introduced a new approach to statutory interpretation and added to the range of reasons on which government action can be found unlawful. In other words, it increased the accountability of the executive and at the same time encouraged respect for the rule of law. Accordingly, it can conclude that the Act facilitated many positive changes.

UK Constitution;

The UK constitution describes as an unwritten one. Explain concerning the legal sources of the UK constitution and appropriate examples; why it call unwritten and consider whether the distinction between a writer and unwritten constitution is legally significant.

The word ‘constitution’ has many different meanings, however, only two of them apply to constitutional law. Firstly, a ‘constitution’ could mean a written document that contains the rules and principles according to which a country is run. Secondly, the word ‘constitution’ could refer to:

“The body of rules and arrangements concerning the government of the country.”

The second definition does not impose any requirement for writing. It should stress that although some states do not have a written constitution every country in the world, including the UK, has a constitution in the second sense of the word. Over the centuries the attitude towards the British/English constitution ranged from admiration to severe criticism. Thomas Paine went even further, he ruled out the possibility that an English constitution could exist. The British constitution has been sometimes described as ‘political.’ Griffith believes the word ’political’ can use to refer to a wide range of qualities, e.g. The UK constitution assumes equality of all citizens and many important rules are not legal rules. He also stressed that the operation of the constitution stands closely linked to Parliament and Parliamentary elections. This leads to the conclusion that the British constitution must analyze in the political context.

Constitution 01;

The UK constitution draws on a wide range of sources; statutes, common law, the royal prerogative, international treaties and agreements, conventions, and academic texts written by legal experts. As an expression of Parliament’s will statutes is the most important source of law. Some of them have a particular constitutional significance, e.g. the Magna Carta 1215, and the Act of Settlement 1701. The Representation of the People Act 1983, and the Human Rights Act 1998. Another written source of law is case law.

Although judges should merely interpret the law, and not get involved in a law-making process. Many crucial legal principles have stood established in the course of legal proceedings. For example, in British Railways Board v Pickin Lord Reid said that the courts have no power to overrule Acts of Parliament on any grounds.

Constitution 02;

International treaties and agreements, such as instance the Treaty of Rome 1957, have also become a source of English law. Similarly, texts written by legal experts may acquire exceptional legal significance, e.g. Dicey’s An Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution.

The unwritten sources of the UK constitution are the royal prerogative and conventions. The royal prerogative stems from the powers used to exercise exclusively by the monarch. And which exist now exercised by the ministers on the Queen’s behalf. Examples of the royal prerogative are the power to declare war. The control over the appointment of ministers, and the right to dissolve Parliament. The legal nature of conventions is somewhat different. They are non-legal norms that should obey by those to whom they apply. Although conventions cannot enforce by the courts they exist usually respected. As the above discussion illustrates, a large part of the constitution write. However, due to the lack of a separate document that could call a constitution. This fact exists often disregarded and the UK constitution says it to be unwritten.

Constitution 03;

The unwritten character of the UK constitution, or rather the existence of unwritten rules, has serious legal implications. The first point to note is that Parliament can pass and revoke the law as it sees fit. Until recently the British constitution did not guarantee any rights. Although an Act, called the Bill of Rights, stood enacted as early as 1688. It dealt exclusively with issues related to Parliament and the Crown. This meant that, in theory, Parliament could pass any legislation it considered appropriate even. If it infringed on the rights of UK citizens.

Before the enactment of the Human Rights Act of 1998, the only limitation on the Parliamentary sovereignty in cases involving human rights violations would have been the rule of law. However, the effectiveness of the rule would have lived limited if the courts had. Wanting to avoid interference with Parliamentary decisions, refused to enforce it. This should juxtapose with countries that have written constitutions. And where the rights of ordinary citizens stand protected by specially drafted provisions.

In addition to being uncodified, the UK constitution is flexible and unitary (provided devolution does not take into account) but it exists not entrenched. The result is that while written constitutions are rigid the UK constitution is flexible, an advantage of flexibility is that any necessary changes can introduce quickly and relatively easily. On the other, however, a lack of entrenchment leaves a lot of power in the hands of a small group of people. Moreover, unwritten constitutions always involve a degree of vagueness. The situation makes worse by the fact that norms that do not write cannot enforce by the courts.

Constitution 04;

These problems do not arise if the constitution stood written. Yet, it does not follow all the relevant laws can found in the constitution. Munro argued:

“It (s) also suggested, wrongly that in countries such as the United States. All the rules and arrangements concerning government had stood reduced to writing in a single document. In practice, this is never the case.”

Both written and unwritten constitutions rely on legal precedent. They exist formed and modify by judicial interpretations of the law and political practices.

It says to ‘unwrite’ however as has existed shown above it is not, strictly speaking, true. The constitution relies on a wide range of sources and most of them can exist found in writing. It has already existed mentioned that the constitution can describe as political. Yet following developments such as the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, membership of the European Union, and changes that took place post-1997, more and more constitutional rules are being codified. Thus, according to Munro, It is becoming ’legal’. It is, therefore, submitted that the gap between the unwritten British constitution and the written constitutions in other countries is gradually becoming narrower. The new EU constitution may close this gap entirely.