The aim of this essay is to critically evaluate the statement 'The European Convention on Human Rights exists to guarantee legal protection to fundamental rights'. It will examine how rights are protected in law and the way the UK approaches the protection of these rights. Explanation will be made of the way that the UK addresses the implementation of the rights in the English legal system. Issues such as conflicting rights and legal limitations will also be considered. An evaluation will be made of whether or not The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the fundamental rights of UK citizens as contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by parliament it had been considered unnecessary to incorporate the Convention directly into UK law. Specifically, it was thought that in the UK common law already provided adequate protection for its citizens. The reasoning behind this line of thinking was that the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 was largely based on British common law. However, a number of infringements were identified and this eventually led to the start of the legislative process which resulted in the Human Rights Act 1998.
In 1997 the government produced a white paper entitled 'Bringing Rights Home'. This formed the basis of what was to become the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act received Royal Assent on 9th November 1998 and finally came into effect in October 2000.
Arguments that were put forward for the incorporation of The European Convention on Human Rights into UK law were partly based on the costs and time considerations involved in taking cases before the European Court in Strasbourg. The Human Rights Act 1998 gave the citizens of the United Kingdo...
... middle of paper ...
... protected by Article 11: may be breached to prevent for instance, public disorder. The government is required to show that there are good legal reasons for breaching these rights. Justifications for breaching qualified rights must be necessary and proportionate.
In final analysis, the Human Rights Act 1998 largely protects the fundamental human rights of UK citizens and provides easier access to remedies if these rights are infringed by public organisations. Undoubtedly, since the Human Rights Act became part of UK law judges have had to take into consideration the rights that are protected by the Act when making decisions. Parliament, is also obliged to consider the human rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom when creating new legislation or making amendments to existing legislation.
Works Cited
Hoffman, D and Rowe, J. (2003) Human Rights in the UK.
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
European convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950- This is the European file connecting to human rights; in European Union this is signed by every government as well as the UK. This has been made to protect the human rights and how it’s made is that it helps for the important freedoms in the European countries.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act which protects the rights and freedoms of any individual in most legal situations. It limits the actions of the Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and has an impact on decision making processes of courts and ...
Before any legislation could be implemented, a definition of human rights had to be compiled and accepted. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved in 1948 by th...
The largest growth in claims occurred in 2001, following the implantation of the human rights act in 2000, with the percentage of ECHR claims increasing to 63% of all judicial review cases being presented. This increase in ECHR cases being presented remained high in following years and highlights that awareness of human rights protections and a willingness to invoke the rights substantially increased following the implementation of the Human Rights Act, indicating that the ECHR has had a significant impact on the legal culture of Northern Ireland. However, despite this major increase, judges I Northern Ireland have found to be unwilling to act upon or enact any proceedings regarding the ECHR claims with only one declaration of incompatibility being issues since 2000. (Weiden,
Prof. Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law, Vol.11, Columbia Journal of European Law (2004-2005)
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR), Art 5(1)(e)
The human rights act 1998 came into force in the United Kingdom in October 2000. A humans right to freedom of expression comes under article 10 and includes freedoms to “hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” (EHRC, 2014) although in the circumstance that a citizens freedom of expression is challenged the law also states. “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society” (EHRC, 2014)
Human rights have been developing as a concept throughout the history of humans. Human rights have been present in several nations throughout history including in Ancient Greece as Natural Law, 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, 1776 in the American Declaration of Independence and 1788 in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. It was not until recently in 1948 that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was created as an international concept in response to the genocide of European Jews by Hitler.
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
The UDHR was adopted in 1948, however in 1966 the division of these rights materialized under two documents; the International Covenant on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The foundation of the separation of civil/political and economic and social rights can be s...
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human rights were devised (UDHR). Everyone has the right to liberty, life, freedom from fear and violence. The obligation to protect individuals and groups the States is required to shield them against human rights abuses (United Nations 2013) The Human Rights Act became effective in the UK in 2000. The purpose of the Human Rights Act is t...
The Human Rights Commission (2014) state that ‘ Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945. Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration.’ An advantage of introducing a Bill of Rights would be that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. A disadvantage would be that the Bill of Rights would interfere with Australia’s international obligations, for example the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The State Library of New South Wales (2011) states that ‘Australia is currently party to seven of the nine core international human rights.’ If a Bill of Rights was introduced into the Australian legal system, it would mean that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be protected by the Australian legal system. Although this would also make it harder for Australia to continue to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments in their legal system. A recommendation would be to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments before considering the idea of a Bill of Rights.