Essay on Principles of Law
Human rights belong to inalienable fundamental rights of person. These rights are commonly understood as applicable everywhere, i.e. universal, and the same for everyone, i.e. egalitarian. It is significant to realize that the doctrine of human rights is a cornerstone of public policy in international practice throughout the world. Inasmuch as international law is a precondition of sound international relationships (Chauhan 36), each state should show respect to it and local legislation should correspond to this law. Over the second half of the 20th century, the human rights arguments emerged provoking social activism and political rhetoric in different countries. Since the United Nations Organization was created, it has been playing a critical role in international human-rights law. International humanitarian law and international human rights law have been essentially developed through the discourse initiated by the members of the United Nations (Forsythe 38). Although the provisions of the United Nations Charter have created favorable conditions and basis for comprehensive system of practice for the protection of human rights, there is still much confusion between different legislative acts, organizations and bodies.
So long as the United Kingdom has no state constitution, the rights and duties of the UK citizens are fixed in a great number of various acts. The British citizens are free to do everything that is not specifically prohibited by any act. Basic civil rights, nevertheless, have no statement and the Parliament is not prevented from restricting them. In 1951 The United Kingdom ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and from 1966 the citizens of the UK received the opportunity to bring their individual petitions to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. However, the provisions of the ECHR had not been incorporated into the UK law by that moment.
The ECHR was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950. This document was based on the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Convention embraces three types of rights: absolute rights, limited rights and qualified rights. Absolute rights cannot be restricted at any circumstances (these are the right to life and prohibition of torture, for example), while limited rights (the right to liberty and security of person as well as right to a fair trial) have specified restrictions of exercising and qualified rights (regarding respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion) are restricted to certain situations when other rights from the law are interfered (Ovey and Robin 58). The main articles of the ECHR have been complemented with fifteen protocols. Among other international human rights agreements, the European Convention is considered to provide the highest degree of individual protection.
One of the main peculiarities of the document was the fact it established institutions as well as procedures for protecting human rights. Petitions on individual cases against states can be brought to the European court of Human Rights.
The UK legislation, however, conflicted much with the ECHR. While the court gave prescriptions, it could not enforce the offender to do the prescription, so the judgements were to be implemented by the goodwill of states. In the United Kingdom, domestic courts could refer to the ECHR while interpreting the local legislation, but the rules of common law were still basic. For example, if the legislation was clear but it did not coincide with the ECHR, the preference was given to the UK legislation.”Individuals were forced to exhaust all rights of appeal in UK courts, at great expense, before being allowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights,” Keenan and Riches (36) explain. In other countries where the ECHR was incorporated into domestic law, the same issues were solved vice versa. The domestic legislation was normally declared invalid if it conflicted with the ECHR.
In this way, by the end of 1990s it was clear there was a need to incorporate the Convention into the UK law. As for the reference to court, the procedure had been too complicated, expensive, long and controversial until the human rights were brought to the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Thus, the Human Rights Act (HRA) was adopted in 1998 and came fully into force in 2000. From that on, the British citizens received an opportunity to exercise and protect their human rights at the UK courts. A declaration of incompatibility may be made if there is a conflict between Convention and the UK legislation revealed during provision.
The Human Rights Act 1998 contained the following rights:
- Right to life (Article 2)
- Prohibition of torture (Article 3)
- Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4)
- Right to liberty and security (Article 5)
- Right to a fair trial (Article 6)
- No punishment without law (Article 7)
- Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)
- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
- Freedom of expression (Article 10)
- Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11)
- Right to marry (Article 12)
- Prohibition of discrimination (Article 13)
- Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol 1)
- Right to education (Article 2 of Protocol 2)
- Right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol 1)
- Abolition of the death penalty (Article 1 of Protocol 6).
“The incompatible provision remains in force until it is amended by ministerial order,” Keenan and Riches (37) state. It is significant to note that Convention rights can be enjoyed only by individuals, not by public authorities. Still, non-governmental hybrid authorities can have the status of victims if they act in a private nature. The Human Rights Act 1998 made the human rights more accessible for the citizens of the United Kingdom. “The Government intended the Human Rights Act 1998 to place human rights at the heart of the way public services are delivered,” Phillipson (726) notes.
In this way, the Human Rights Act 1998 has incorporated all the principle rights of the European Convention on Human Rights for the citizens of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there is the so-called public authority loophole which can be considered the main issue restricting protection and promotion of human rights in the UK. The need for an integrated equality and human rights perspective is widely recognized. Weighing up the potential of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, it becomes obvious that there is an urgent need for more systematic approach and timely guidance of public authorities in regards to the so-called “positive obligations” or “public duties”, including those on the implications of relevance case law. The current jurisprudence should also incorporate the statement of the ECHR to make the promotion of human rights more powerful.
