Public Law, The Human Rights Act 1998, Protection of human rights
Protection of human rights has been the focus of many governments and states in the world. The United Nations, for instance, has put in place a number of rules and regulations that revolve around human rights and which all members should adhere. The United Kingdom is one of the states that have continuously upheld the practice of protection of human rights through various acts and laws on the issue. The UK can talk of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights (1689) when explaining her efforts in the field of protection of human rights. It was only after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the idea of protection of human rights became international (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010).
Britain was among the stakeholders who came up with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The main objective of this convention was enforcing the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, this convention did not consider the local needs of the people, as they had to move to Strasbourg, where the European Court of Human Rights was, to claim protection or to express their grievances (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010). This called for the need to have an internal system that would attend to various human rights issues in the UK. These developments led to the enactment of The Human Rights Act 1998 that would consider the factors above.
[...] The main objective of this convention was enforcing the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, this convention did not consider the local needs of the people, as they had to move to Strasbourg, where the European Court of Human Rights was, to claim protection or to express their grievances (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010). This called for the need to have an internal system that would attend to various human rights issues in the UK. These developments led to the enactment of The Human Rights Act 1998 that would consider the factors above. [...]
[...] Edinburgh: Thomson/W. Green. Allen, T. (2005). Property and The Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford: Hart. PUBLIC LAW Swindells, H. (1999). Family law and the Human Rights Act 1998. Bristol: Family Law. [...]
[...] Under the act, ministers must produce a statement of compatibility before enacting any legislation. The statement shows how the new law relates with the European Convention Rights. However, the act has received criticism from various stakeholders in the society including government officials. Key among the criticism is the idea that the act gives too much power to judges at the expense of parliament. This idea is a complete misunderstanding of the act and is flawed. This is because the act differs from the common Bill of Rights from other nations. [...]
[...] For instance, if a court finds one of the laws to be incompatible with the Convention Rights, it should advice the parliament about the incompatibility. The parliament will then be responsible for deciding on the best way forward. This shows that the Act gives the courts the opportunity act as regulators of performance and accountability of the parliament and does not withdraw the powers of the parliament as the lawmaker. Courts are also avenues of interpretation of legislation and are not involved in the development of legislation. [...]
[...] The ultimate role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and ensure the appropriate application of the same law, which are among the powers that The Human Rights Act gives to the courts. It is clear that the act does not interfere with the role of parliament of making rules that are for the benefit of the public. The powers that the act gives to the judges and courts are those of interpretation and application of the law but not rather preventing the government (parliament) from developing new legislation. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
