blog




  • Essay / Human Rights Act 1998, A positive development for...

    “We believe that the time has come to allow people to assert their treaty rights against the State in the British courts […] Our aim is simple . . This is about making the rights that the British people already enjoy under the Convention more directly accessible. In other words, bring these rights back home. » Since 1953, international law has required the UK to respect the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Convention became exceptionally important when the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 was enacted, incorporating "Convention rights" into domestic law so that they could be directly enforceable in domestic courts. Until the HRA, the ECHR could be used in UK courts to support arguments that public bodies had acted unreasonably in Wednesbury, or that ambiguously worded legislation should be interpreted in a way favorable to human rights. However, the rights enshrined in the Convention were not part of domestic law and could only be applied in Strasbourg through lengthy procedures and only after exhausting all domestic channels. The aim of the HRA 1998, as set out in its detailed title, is to “give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights”. The 1998 Act makes these rights available to anyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom so that they can rely on domestic courts to enforce their rights; the law therefore strengthens the ability of citizens to assert their rights before the courts. However, this is not the only objective of the Law; it also has the wider objective of contributing to the integration of a culture of human rights within all public authorities, regardless of whether litigation is threatened or...... middle of paper ......previous rule of interpretation of statutes", it is 'merely a rule of interpretation. It does not authorize judges to act as legislators...compatibility must be ensured only in the as far as possible.” Accordingly, the courts have emphasized the fact that, when interpreting a statute, the words must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the important scheme and principles of the statute. Because if we act otherwise, we will end up with one. “judicial vandalism”. Whatever the future of the British constitution and whatever criticisms are leveled at the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no doubt that it constitutes a an extremely positive development for the protection of human rights rights in the United Kingdom. The authors agree wholeheartedly that “the Act represents a small, manageable step for our courts, but it is a big step forward for our constitution and our culture;.”