The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. The WritePass Journal

The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction‘Nonsense upon stilts’ – Bentham Human rights violation that went to the StrasbourgIncorporation of the HRACritic of the HRASolutions of HRAConclusionBibliographyRelated Introduction In this essay I have examined the overall impact of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (â€Å"HRA†), after its long campaign to infiltrate UK law. First this paper will begin by discussing the traditional British approach to protecting human rights before the HRA. Second this paper will examine the UK case law on human rights violation that went to the Strasbourg. Third this paper will examine what impact the HRA has had on human rights protection. Fourth this study will examine the problem with the current system of protection such as no horizontal protection between private persons and lack of entrenchment. Fourth this paper will advocate better protection can be achieved through a Bill of Rights. Lastly this paper will conclude its findings. ‘Nonsense upon stilts’ – Bentham Professor A V Dicey (1835-1922), a constitutional theorist argued that individual liberties were more effectively protected by parliamentary sovereignty, an unwritten constitution and common law, than by a continental system with their constitutional codes and catalogue of rights[1].   His argument was that because rights were not written down, but endorsed by judicial rulings, it would be more difficult for government to take away liberties of people.   On the contrary, many of the rights, which have been included in the written constitution of other countries, such as the USA, were rights, which, at common law, existed in the UK through the form of freedoms.   Jeremy Bentham referred to the ideology of human rights as being sheer nonsensical. With no law there are no rights, you are on your own. If we want to have rights we need to create them. Rights are created by law and are manmade and synthetic. Bentham stated: â€Å"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and impres criptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts.† Human rights violation that went to the Strasbourg Several eminent peers, Lord Wade (in 1976), Lord Scarman, the former Law Lord (in 1988), and Lord Lester(in 1995) have attempted to introduce a Bill of Rights.   Each attempt was based on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (â€Å"ECHR†), an international agreement to which the UK has been a signatory for over 60 years.   Many cases were brought against the United Kingdom for breach of its obligations in regards to the convention, resulting in UK law sometimes having to be changed by Parliament so as to comply with our human rights obligations, a case was brought by prisoners in 2005 who were denied the right to vote. Although it is acknowledged that a ‘margin of appreciation’ is allowed to individual member states when applying constitutional requirements, to keep within their individual traditions, on this occasion the margin was too wide and therefore ‘disproportionate’. This kind of de facto Bill of Rights offered through European courts has proved to be a lengthy, inaccessible, expensive and unreliable form of remedy. It was not good for the UK’s image abroad to be frequently found in error by a ‘foreign’ court, as it has been many times this is also supposed by Lord Irvin of Lairg The Lord Chancellor in a key role addresses to the conference on a bill of rights for the United Kingdom 4th July 1992. â€Å"This Government’s position is that we should be leading in the development of human rights in Europe, not grudgly driven to swallow the medicine prescribed for us by the court in Strasbourg, when we are found in breach of the convention†. An example of this is Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.   Mr Malone’s telephone had been tapped, there was no law forbidding them to do so as English law gives no general right to privacy. Other cases that elaborate the point of mishandling of power by the state are in Abdulazizi v UK (1985).   The case alleged that British immigration rules discriminated against women, because men settled in the U.K were allowed to bring their wives and fiancà ©s to live with them here, but women in the same position could not bring their husbands and fiancà ©s into the country.   Instead of amending the mistake of allowing husbands to live in the U.K they restricted both men and women bringing partners from abroad, ending the sexual discrimination but breaching human rights. Moreover, in Jordon v UK it was found Article 2 ECHR (right to life) had been breached, the investigation was flawed in the circumstances surrounding the death of the claimant’s son who had been k illed by police. Such decisions have led to changes in UK law to prevent further infringement of Convention rights and amendments to legal procedures. For example the issuing of new prison rules in 1999, updating their management from the rules of 1964. Incorporation of the HRA The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and coming into force November 2000. This Act has incorporated the ECHR into UK law. The ECHR is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted after World War II, to prohibit further atrocities associated with war, and is a statement of values and standards of rights and responsibilities. The act only covers civil and political rights and freedoms such as the right to a fair trial (s6) and the right to respect for privacy and family life (s8). Arguably a Bill of Rights would be more comprehensive. It would in addition cover social and economic rights, things such as housing or employment. Despite this, the HRA is regarded by many as a good first step towards a Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 has adopted this ‘affirmative resolution procedure’ Lord Irvine talks about and it is exercised when human rights are infringed by incomplete British legislation, or even the absence of legislation. These kinds of cases have been restricted to the higher courts. A citizen whom has had their Human Rights breached can now get redress from domestic courts; the aim of the HRA as quoted by Lord Irvine is to‘Bring the rights home’   avoiding the lengthy road to Strasbourg.   The incorporation of ECHR is to weave human rights into the existing fabric of legislative, executive and judicial responsibility. The establishment of a Human rights commission in October 2007 has helped to scrutinise legislation and bring individual test cases to court, they have produced papers and undertaken an educational role. Critic of the HRA Critic’s say the HRA has been exploited by lawyers promoting a ‘compensation culture’ with ‘no win, no fee’ promises. Citizens are more prepared to fight for their rights since the Access to Justice Act 1999 was introduced making it easier for them to take action to court. Jack Straw, the then Secretary of State for Justice Lord Chancellor, has called these lawyers ‘unscrupulous ambulance chasers’. Travellers and squatters use the HRA when faced with expulsion, you could say demanding privileged treatment at the expense of others. The same is the case when you look at criminals and prisoners demanding their rights ahead of the victims. Although the UK legislator has every right to amend the HRA it seems from this that it would most definitely cause much legal protests. This has now allowed the European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental Freedoms (â€Å"ECHR†) 1950 to be enforced in the UK. In particular I will discuss whether the HRA has had a satisfactory impact on protecting human rights and whether it is vulnerable to repeal. HRA and ECHR only deal with political and civil rights of a person or public body, such as freedom of expression, with no governmental expenditure unlike social/economical rights, which include welfare and social security and education at a cost to the state. Has the Human Rights Act bettered the condition of liberty in Britain? Before the Human Rights Act, liberty was described by Dworkin as â€Å"ill in Britain†. The GCHQ case is a good example of where the government wrongly infringed individual rights even though it believed that such an infringement would protect security of the nation. The Government had banned the civil servants from being members of trade unions. Following this decision senior judges supported the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the belief that minorities groups would gain protection from the â€Å"tyranny† of elected majorities by better protecting civil liberties. Although having the power of Judicial Review, courts largely looked the other way rather than trying to balance liberty against security. The paradox here is that while in theory the principle of the rule of law protects individual rights, in practice these rights are vulnerable to erosion by the judiciary, executive and legislature. ‘Liberty is ill in Britain’ YET this is the land of the free. Judges are being given more power YET they failed to use their existing powers to stop the decay of liberty. The HRA is said to be a weak sedative to a terminal condition. Although the act exists, the courts are limiting its application in a number of ways. Courts can interpret legislation with effect to the convention rights (s3) but they are using this interpretative obligation too narrowly. They have the power to make declarations of incompatibility (s4)but they are reluctant to use this power. Although these judicial failures are acknowledged, they are not addressed. Despite the incorporation of convention rights, the domestic courts continue to follow their previous approach in times of crisis. As a result Convention rights cannot stop the unstoppable state powers, including police stop and search warrants. In times of emergency the courts do not and will not protect the individual from the state. It will take more than the incorporation of convention rights to change the judicial role Solutions of HRA The HRA is a piece of legislation and not entrenched like the Bill of Rights (â€Å"BOR†) in USA therefore, as with any act of Parliament, could be repealed. Although in reality ramification could be an issue as rights under the signed Convention have now been greatly highlighted to citizens. After nearly two hundred years of debate over the UK having an ‘entrenched’ BOR the HRA was introduced, in lieu of Labour’s ‘second stage BOR commitment’ receding.   The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, described it as â€Å"the first BOR this country has seen for three centuries†. The New York Times heralded the Act’s arrival with the headline â€Å"Britain Quietly Says it’s Time to Adopt a Bill of Rights† commenting that, finally, â€Å"ordinary Britons† will have a set of fundamental rights â€Å"similar to those guaranteed by the [US] Bill of Rights†. Conservative belief was that an entrenched BOR would be lethal for the doctrine of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ as one Parliament will be able to bind its successor, traditionally not practiced. Contradictorily, the original English BOR of 1689 established the concept of parliamentary sovereignty by curbing the powers of the Crown. However, David Cameron, also conservative, has for many years been campaigning for the introduction of a British BOR. It had been brushed under the carpet for 18yrs until the Labour Party came into power. Labour were in favour of constitutional reform resulting in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The late Labour leader, John Smith, had committed his Party to support a British BOR in February 1993 as part of proposals to â€Å"restore democracy to our people – for what we have in this country at the moment is not real democracy; it is elective dictatorship†. Smith stated that â€Å"the quickest and simplest way† of introducing â€Å"a substantial package of human rights† would be to pass a Human Rights Act â€Å"incorporating into British law the European Convention on Human Rights,†. Our government, but not our courts, were bound by the ECHR since the post-war Atlee government ratified the ECHR in 1951. In 2008 Cameron spoke out saying that the HRA has become a ‘villains charter’ and should be scraped as criminals and terror suspects were using it as a shield, claiming   their rights were being violated whilst in custody. The Police also showed reluctance to publish pictures of wanted criminals for fear of breaching right of privacy. This notion was backed by the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw, a key architect in the creation of the HRA during the height of Labours Constitutional reform period. Both have criticised ‘nervous’ judges for failing to interpret the HRA adequately, for example not deporting terror suspects despite having the backing of ministers saying it was of national interest to do so. Home Secretary at the time Jacqui Smith also reinforced the notion that the HRA had made it difficult for their removal. Cameron’s call for a British BOR envisaged judges to ‘operate on principles of proportionality’.   Straw wants to keep the HRA but wants a rebalance of the rights set out, citizens to ‘obey law and be loyal to the country’. Cameron’s viewpoint was that an entrenched BOR, giving citizens broad outlines to entitlements and values, would insure that citizen’s rights would be guarded and not be subjected to repealed or changed with ease, as is the case with any act of Parliament. He believed it would also restore supremacy of Westminster over laws that seemed to have been imposed by Europe. Conclusion In reality Dicey’s view, which promotes the common laws central role in protecting ‘liberties’, and Parliament Acts both run parallel in the protection of human rights. In conclusion the Human Rights Act 1998 is a definite good first step towards a Bill of Rights, a possible second step in adopting a Bill of Rights would be to partly entrench ECHR so that it can be treated in the same way as EU law is today. Bibliography The Politics of the Common Law Perspectives, Rights, Processes, Institutions Adam Geary, Wayne Morrison and Robert Jago. Routledge-Cavendish ISBN 13: 978-0-415-48153-3 (pbk) Learning Legal Rules Sixth Edition James Holland and Julian Webb Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-928250-0 Daily Mail 8 December 2008 Cameron will scrap Human Rights Act in campaign for UK Bill of Right dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092716 Daily Mail 17 April 2011 Cameron was right: We need a Bill of Right By Geoffrey Robertson dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1377729 Civil Liberties Law: The Human Rights Act Era. Noel Whitty, Therese Murphy and Stephen Livingstone. Butterworths ISBN 0-406-55511-7 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE †¨LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION Eight Edition A. V. Dicey Oxford, 1914 constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm Westlaw UK THE STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP Paper No. 1 Alexander Horne Home Affairs Research Section, House of Commons The Changing Constitution: A Case for Judicial Confirmation Hearings? With a foreword by Sir Ross Cranston FBA spg.org.uk/spg-paper-1.pdf Lexis Library UK Research and Library Services Northern Ireland Assembly Research Paper 05/02 Revised February 2002 NORTHERN IRELAND BILL OF RIGHTS CONSULTATION: BACKGROUND AND COMPARATIVE INFORMATION niassembly.gov.uk/io/research/0502.pdf Civil Liberties and Human Rights Third Edition Helen Fenwick ISBN 1-85941-493-1 House of Lords House of Commons. Joint Committee on Human Rights. A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty–ninth Report of Session 2007–08 Published on 10 August 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf Constitutional Administrative Law Seventh Edition Hilary Barnet Routledge-Cavendish ISBN10: 0-415-47312-8 (pbk) House of Commons Library. European Court of Human Rights rulings: are there options for governments? Standard Note: Last updated: Author: Section SN/IA/5941 18 April 2011 Vaughne Miller International Affairs and Defence Section parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05941.pdf THE LAW COMMISSION (LAW COM No 323) ANNUAL REPORT 2009–10 The Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Law Commission Laid before Parliament pursuant to section 3(3) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 29 June 2010 official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc01/0127/0127.pdf Human Rights Act 1998 ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/humanrights?view=Binary United Nations website un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml The Equality and Human Rights Commission 2009 ISBN 978-1-84206-223-4. A Bill of Rights: Do we need one or do we already have one? Professorial Research Fellow Francesca Klug 2 March 2007 Irvine Human Rights Lecture 2007, University of Durham, Human Rights Centre (To be published in Public Law, Winter 2007) www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/Durham07_Klug.pdf ALBA SUMMER CONFERENCE 2010 THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY Richard Clayton QC adminlaw.org.uk/docs/SC%202010%20by%20Richard%20Clayton.pdf The Guardian Newspaper Liberty’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: â€Å"A British Bill of Rights† August 2007 liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy07/response-to-jchr-re-british-bill-of-rights.pdf Telegraph, â€Å"David Cameron: Scrap the Human Rights Act†, 24th August 2007 Human Rights Bill [H.L.] HL Deb 25 January 1995 vol 560 cc1136-74 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1995/jan/25/human-rights-bill-hl The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of British subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of British subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. IntroductionBibliography:Related Introduction The protection of rights and freedom of citizens and others within their jurisdiction is a basic duty of the state. In a majority of democratic states, fundamental rights are defined and protected through a written constitution. Under the United Kingdom’s, uncodified constitution, rights and freedoms have traditionally been protected either by Acts of Parliament often passed to meet particular needs or propagated by sudden needs of society or by the judges in developing the common law. One response to the ravages of the Second World War was the formation of the Council of Europe.Europe was one of the principal theatres of the Second World War, following which there was felt to be a great need for European political, social and economic unity. These objectives were perceived to be promoted, in part, by the adoption of a uniform convention designed to protect human rights and fundamental freedom. In 1949, the Council of Europe was established and the convention on human rights ratified by signatory states in 1951, coming in to force in 1953. Despite having been instrumental in the drafting of the text of the convention, the British government had strong reservation about the Convention and its impact on British constitutional law. As a result of this reservation, the British government remained reluctant, until 1997, to make the Convention rights directly enforceable before the domestic courts. Accordingly, until the Human Rights Act 1998, the Convention rights could only be enforced before the court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It came into effect in England and Wales in 2000 but Convention rights were enforceable in Scotland from 1998 under the Scotland Act 1998 and in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 The incorporation of Convention rights into domestic law under the 1998 Act put an end, finally to the debate of transposition of these rights which had endured for decades. That long running debate focused on 3 principal concerns, namely the criticism that the convention is outdated and not tailored specifically to British conditions, that the Judiciary was ill equipped to assume the mantle of guardian of the Individual rights in the face of Executive power and the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty and concerns over manner in which incorporation would effect the conventional balance of power between judges and Parliament. There was also the argument that the House of Commons, the democratically elected representative body of the people, was best equipped to respond to the better protection of rights. The effect of the Act is such that three avenues for challenging public bodies arise; first, a failure to comply with Convention rights now forms the basis for legal action. Secondly, a new ground for judicial review has been introduced namely the alleged breach of human rights. Third, convention rights may in some circumstances be used as a defence to actions brought by public bodies. The Act provides a charter of rights now enforceable before the domestic courts. theist effectiveness however rests on the course of action on which the judiciary embarks upon.   The judges have to have a willingness to defend Convention rights to protect individuals preventing the government’s encroachment to the greatest extent possible. Moreover the judges need to ensure compliance with declarations of compatibility with Convention rights   to ensure compliance with declarations of compatibility with Convention rights and the energy with which individual citizens are prepared to assert their rights in courts of Law. The Act, in the government’s view, was intended to provide a new basis for judicial interpretation of all legislation; not a basis for striking down any part of it. However, notwithstanding the careful drafting of the HRA in order to preserve sovereignty the judges appear to be developing the concept of the constitutional statute; one constitutional statute, one consequence of which is that the doctrine of implied repeal does not operate and only express intention to amend or repeal the Act will have effect. Section 2 of the HRA requires that the domestic courts to take into the account, interalia judgments of the court of Human Rights. This does not however mean that the courts are bound to follow slavishly such judgments. The issue was central to the case of Kay v Lambeth. The primary focus of the convention rights is on public authorities. HRA 1998, S.6 (1) states: â€Å"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.† S.6 (3) states: â€Å"Any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.† The definition of the public body was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Leonard   Cheshire Foundation (2002). Although some bodies are clearly public authorities such as government departments, local authorities, the police, the Inland Revenue and others who have no private function, the Act does not define ‘public authority’ The restrictive approach of the Courts, illustrated most starkly by the Leonard Cheshire case and the YL case has been subjected to strong criticism by the Joint Committee on HR in the meaning of Public Authority under the HRA. The Committee highlights the implications of the narrow interpretation of public bodies for a range of particularly vulnerable people in society. The Committee endorsed the view that the key test for whether a body exercised a public function should be whether the relevant function is one for which the government has assumed responsibility in the public interest. It should not depend on whether the body is acting under statutory authority or under contract. The Committee considered that the current position is unsatisfactory and unfair and continues to frustrate the intention of Parliament. S.3 HRA requires the courts to interpret primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention, so far as it is possible to do so. The House of Lords in R v A 2002 laid down the basis for the reinterpretation of a statutory provision to make it compatible with convention rights which was followed in Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza   2004. Declarations of incompatibility are regulated by s.4, which provides that if a court is satisfied that a provision of primary or subordinate legislation is incompatible with one or more convention rights, it may make a declaration of incompatibility and s.5 of HRA 1998 confers on a minister the right to be heard. The purpose of s.5(2) is to ensure that the appropriate minister has an opportunity to address the court on the objects and purposes of the legislature in question and any other matters which might be relevant. Article 13 of the Convention which provides that everyone shall have an effective remedy before a national authority has deliberately not been incorporated. Instead, s.8 provides that, where a court finds that a public authority has acted unlawfully, it may grant â€Å"such relief or remedy, or make such order within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate. Accordingly, courts and tribunals may only award as remedy which is within their statutory powers. Damages may only be awarded by a court which has power to award damages or to order the payment of compensation in civil proceedings and no award of damages is to be made unless, taking in to account all the circumstances of the case and any other relief or remedy available, the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the complainant. The HRA introduced a disturbance or a perturbation in the judicial practice of precedent is testified by the case of R v Lambert and R v Kansal .   However this dilemma was put to rest in these cases when it was suggested that the interpretative powers given to the judiciary should not be exercised retrospectively. Lately an escalating debate has been witnessed against the HRA. These controversies provide an important backdrop to the legal developments in this field. The Prime Minister has frequently challenged the value of the European Court of Human Rights and the HRA criticizing the Act. Deportation of terrorists and the threat they pose to national security has been a prevalent practice which has been a flagrant breach of the rights granted under the Convention. The Conservative Party in the UK has even proposed to scrape off the Act and replace it with a complete UK Act which shall preserve public interest and national security policies more than any regional or international pacts. In July 2006 the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) published its review of the Implementation of the HRA. It considered the development of substantive law and decided that HRA had no significant impact on criminal law and that the HRA’s impact on counter terrorism legislation arose from the decision of the ECtHR rather than the HRA itself. The review opined that in other areas the HRA had had a beneficial impact and had not significantly altered the conational balance between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Review also concluded that the HRA had not affected the outcome of the cases largely as the Convention rights might not be directly related to the facts of the case or interference with the Convention rights might be justified or a similar right might already be recognized by common law. The Review canvassed various options for the future. The Government had ruled out with drawing from the European Convention on Human Rights or repealing the HRA. It would be possible, however, to amend the HRA using the margin of appreciation to require the courts to give particular respect to public safety in a similar way to ss.12 and 13 in relation to freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The Government also proposed to take a more proactive, strategic and coordinated approach to HRA litigation. By studying HRA, all law subjects are now open to a human rights analysis and the next few years will see the application of those principles tested to the fullest. Many cases to date have received widely spread publicity, not surprisingly given that many of the big human rights case raise issues that are politically or morally contentious and often emotionally charged: for example the Art 8 rights to privacy of Venables and Thompson, the convicted murders of toddler Jamie Bulger. The Art 5 rights of those alleged to be supporters of terrorism. A and others v Secretary of State for Home Department and the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness or life threatening disability, R v DPP, exparte pretty 2001. the rages of cases is ever increasing as these new principles are tested. After the non binding Universal Declaration of the HRA, many global and regional human rights treaties have been concluded. Critics argue that these are unlikely to have made any actual difference in reality. Others contend that international regimes can improve respect for HR in state parties, particularly in more democratic countries or countries with a strong civil society devoted to Human Rights and with transnational links. The finding suggest that rarely does treaty ratification have unconditional efforts on HR. instead, improvement in human rights is typically more likely the more democratic the country or the more international nongovernmental organizations its citizens particular in. Conversely, in very autocratic regimes with weak civil society, ratification can be expected to have no effect and is sometimes even associated with more rights violation. Bibliography: A. Barnett, H., M. Diamantides, Public law (Guide), (London: University of London Press, 2007) A. Edward, Richard, Judicial Defence under the Human Rights Act, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 65. No. 6, (Blackwell Publishing, 2000). Barnett, Hilaire, Constitutional Administrative Law,(London: Routledge. Cavenish taylor Francis Group, 2009). Clayton, Richard, Eurpion Human Right Law Review (2007). De Beats, Antoon, The impact of the Universal Declaration of the Human Right on the study of History, History and theory, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Blackwell Publishing, 2009). Gearey, Adam, Wayne and Robert Jago, the Politics of the Common Law,(London:   Routledge. Cavenish Taylor Francis Group, 2009) Holland, James, Julian Webb,Learning Legal Rules, Sixth Edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kavanagh, Aileen, The Role of Parliament Intention in Adjudication under the Human Right Act 1998, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1,(London: Oxford University Press, 2006).

International law moot Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

International law moot - Essay Example With respect to Rocky, Ruritania might argue that pursuant to the maxim par in parem non habet jurisdictionem (no state has jurisdiction over another) applies in the case of Rocky who is the son of a diplomat.3 This maxim is reflected in 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to which both Ruritania and Utopia are parties and thus are equally bound. In particular Article 41 of the 1963 Vienna Convention provides that: Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.4 Rocky has not been implicated in any crime although there are suspicions that he might have attempted to commit a crime. Therefore the gravity of the crime cannot be established as no crime was committed, only the suspicion that a crime may have been contemplated. Therefore pursuant to Article 41(1) of the 1963 convention, Rocky’s arrest and detention pending trial is unlawful. ... It will also be argued that since, Rocky is a family member of an ambassador diplomatic immunity under the 1963 Convention applies to him.6 Utopia’s Response Utopia’s response will rely on the UN Declaration on Friendly Relations which effectively expands state responsibilities under the UN Charter. In this regard, the relevant part of the UN Declaration on Friendly Relations reads as follows: Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.7 Utopia will therefore argue that Ruritania essentially sponsored or acquiesced in the terrorist activities of the FAI and in essence supported their activities allowing them to launch a terrorist attack on Utopia from Ruritania. In addition, U topia will rely on the exception to the general prohibition against war as found in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 provides as follows: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.8

Middle Class Struggles Critique Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Middle Class Struggles Critique - Essay Example The final agreement was that one spouse could hold on to some money ranging from $19,000 to $95,000 according to the state. The law makers gave one spouse the right to refuse any financial obligation thereby shifting the partner's responsibility to the Medicaid. After his old parents could not look after themselves, Adam Albenico was confused on the next step to take considering his parent were from a middle class background making it hard for them to qualify for Medicaid. He visited Mr. Russo an elder-care lawyer and the chairman of the Medicaid task force for the National Academy of Elder Care Attorneys. He presented his case about his ailing father who needed a nursing home services pointing out that long-term care would exhaust their savings in 15 months. Mr. Russo educated him about Medicaid and advised him that his parent's assets be transferred to his mother so that she could sign the legal forms refusing to support her husband. He did this and a nursing home accepted his father but insisted that Albenico should pay for two months of care upfront or $15,000 in case his father's Medicaid application did not go through. He later sold his mother's property to finance her assisted living move but her mother later run out of money and Albenico together with his sister continued paying t

Collaborative working between primary and secondary care in community Essay

Collaborative working between primary and secondary care in community mental health - Essay Example The National Service Framework acknowledges the growing mental health needs of the adult population in the community and the alarming rise of mental health problems in the population. The commonest problems have been recognised to be anxiety and depression; however, psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia and manic depression are also not uncommon. Although there had been a service provision for these individuals for specialist mental health care units, unfortunately that did not serve well, and most these patients would be cared by the general practitioner or the primary care team, since most of these patients prefer care by the primary care team. If a specialist care team provides support to these patients while the care continued to be provided by the GPs and the primary team, it was contemplated, given the proportions of referrals to the specialist services, that an integrated care provision involving collaboration between care teams would best serve the purpose. However, it was soon evident that the problem of mental health care was not just specialist or primary treatment alone. It has social service implications since during the psychiatric or medical ca re, these patients needed support in terms of housing, employment, and training. There were problems with medication compliance, immediate crisis management facilities, continuous follow-up and earliest interventions, social support, and dual diagnosis. These problems would need the involvement of specialist community team including social care, but they cannot function effectively without the help from the primary care teams. While this paints the ideal picture, the reality must be different, since reviews still indicate that there are gaps in care provision in the mental health sector. Therefore, only evidence from literature can indicate the areas of the gaps, their reasons, and ways to avoid them so this framework can work most

Biblical Essay: Analysis of Pauls Letter To The Galatians

Biblical Essay: Analysis of Paul's Letter To The Galatians When Paul attended the Jerusalem Conference in 48 or 49, a decision was made that gentiles would be allowed to become Christians without becoming Jews first (ie. have a circumcision, and follow the Jewish Laws). Paul, being the one that defended the gentile's right to be Christians, became the apostle to the gentiles. Why would Paul, a Jew, want to be an apostle to gentiles? According to him, Jesus appeared to him in AD 32 or 36, and told him to preach the good news to the gentiles (Gal 1:16). Paul uses scripture to explain why gentiles should not be required to be circumcised, or obey Jewish Law; however, there are no direct quotes in scripture that say this. One would wonder why Paul, someone who grew-up in a "good" Jewish family, would not follow in the footsteps of Jewish Christian Missionaries, and require Christian converts to become Jews first. He certainly had to fight to have his belief accepted! In my opinion, Paul tried to follow the example of the original apostles (who knew Jesus) by "converting the multitudes." I think Paul understood human nature better than the other apostles preaching circumcision to the gentiles. Perhaps he thought that gentiles would accept Christianity more easily if it was natural to their lifestyle --I'm sure that the thought of circumcision, and strict dietary laws scared gentiles from Christianity! It seems that the "Judaziers" preached a God that was hard to please. Paul's major problem confronted in his letter to the Galatians is the preachings of the Judaziers. Apparently, men who preach circumcision and the Law had been trying to "pervert" the Galatians, and change their belief... ...is area is full of rules/laws for the Galatians to live by. Of course, he justifies that Christians live by these laws because they "Walk in the Spirit of Christ." (Gal 5:16) If Christians are to "imitate" Jesus' actions & morals, then why should they decide to follow some, and not others? This is more evidence of Peter trying to create a "convenient" religion. The problem of acceptance of Jewish Law, I believe, is the fundamental split in Christianity. It can still be seen today: Catholicism represents Paul's view of Christianity, while Seventh Day Adventist Christians keep Jewish Law. However, if Paul had preached the Law, I don't believe that Christianity would even be present today (especially among the gentiles). He did much to advance Christianity; however, Gentile Christianity became a religion of Paul, rather than a religion of Jesus.

Life of Fidel Castro Essay

The Life of Fidel Castro Fidel Castro, is the well-known dictatorial leader of Cuba for nearly five decades. His leadership has been the focus of international controversy. How is it that a man of this privileged upbringing, became the leader of a socialist revolution in Cuba, brought the world to the brink of destruction, and ultimately became one of the most famous political leaders in the history of Latin America. He was born on a farm in Biran, Cuba near mayan on August 13, 1926. He received a Jesuit education while attending a boarding school in Havana by the name Colegio de Belen. When he finished high school, he attended the University of Havana. In 1950 he graduated from the university with adegree in law. â€Å"A man is not entirely the master of his own destiny. A man is also the child of circumstances, of difficulties, of struggle. Problems gradually sculpt him like a lathe sculpts a piece of metal. A man Is not born a revolutionary, I’d venture to say. † (Castro, and Ramonet 23) In 1952 Fidel Castro became a candidate for Congress for the Cuban People’s Party. He was a superb public speaker and soon built up a strong following amongst the young members of the party. The Cuban People’s Party was expected to win the election but during the campaign. General Fulgencio Batista, with the support of the armed forces, took control of the country. Castro came to the conclusion that revolution was the only way that the Cuban People’s Party would gain power. In 1953, Castro, with an armed group of 123 men and women, attacked the Moncada Army Barracks. The plan to overthrow Batista ended in disaster and although only eight were killed in the fighting, another eighty were murdered by the army after they were captured. Castro was lucky that the lieutenant who arrested him ignored orders to have him executed and instead delivered him to the nearest civilian prison. In 1959 Cuba becomes the first Communist state in the western hemisphere after Fidel Castro, a 32-year-old lawyer, leads his rebels, known as the 26 July army, to victory on the streets of Havana, overthrowing the regime of US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. Castro appoints Ernesto â€Å"Che† Guevara to his government. Attempting to spread the revolution in South America, Guevara is captured in a firefight in the jungle with Bolivian government troops and executed two days later. He had disappeared from the Cuban political scene in 1965 amid growing rumors that he had becomedisillusioned by Castro’s drift towards less radical politics. During 1979 Cuba supports the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Later, Cuba controversially sends military assistance to influence civil wars in Angola and Ethiopia. Anglo-Cuban relations almost reach breaking point after a Cuban diplomat fires a gun in a crowded London street in 1988. Havana claimed that its attack was being followed by CIA agents plotting to force him to defect. The Thatcher government condemned the behavior of the Cuban diplomat and added that a man was wounded – he was a member of the British security services and not the CIA. The US tightens its longstanding embargo on Cuba during 1992, extending restrictions on travel and trade with the Cuban Democracy Act. Fearing a collapse, Castro slowly begins to deregulate Cuba’s economy, moving to allow limited individual private enterprise A boat rescue of a Cuban child, Elian Gonzalez, sparks a diplomatic row with the US. The six-year-old boy was picked up off the Florida coast after he and his mother attempted to flee Cuba. After a protracted court battle, he was sent back to Cuba to live with his father, despite a high-profile campaign by wealthy US-based Cubans for him to remain. On July 31, 2006, Castro delegated his duties as President of the Council of state, President of the Council of Ministers, First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party and the post of commander in chief of the armed forces to his brother Raul Castro. This transfer of duties was described at the time as temporary while Fidel recovered from surgery he underwent due to an acute intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding. Fidel Castro was too ill to attend the nationwide celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Granma boat landing on December 2, 2006, which also became his belated 80th birthday celebrations. Castro’s non-appearance fueled reports that he had terminal pancreatic cancer and was refusing treatment, but on December 17, 2006 Cuban officials stated that Castro had no terminal illness and would eventually return to his public duties. Castro, who has not appeared in public since undergoing stomach surgery, said he would not seek a new term as president or leader of Cuba’s armed forces. He has retired and given the power to his younger brother Raul. â€Å"Fidel has outlasted seven U. S. presidents and five Soviet leaders. He has been in power longer than any world figure except King Hussein of Jordan. † (Bourne 305)

Definition and Examples of Parrhesia

In classical rhetoric, parrhesia is free, frank, and fearless speech. In ancient Greek thought, speaking with parrhesia meant saying everything or speaking ones mind. An intolerance of parrhesia, notes S. Sara Monoson, marked tyranny of both the Hellenic and Persian varieties in the Athenian view. . . . The coupling of freedom and parrhesia in the democratic self-image . . . functioned to assert two things: the critical attitude appropriate to a democratic citizen, and the open life promised by democracy (Platos Democratic Entanglements, 2000). Examples and Observations The author of [Rhetorica] ad Herennium discussed a figure of thought called parrhesia (frankness of speech). This figure occurs when, talking before those to whom we owe reverence or fear, we yet exercise our right to speak out, because we seem justified in reprehending them, or persons dear to them, for some fault (IV xxxvi 48). For example: The university administration has tolerated hate speech on this campus, and so to some extent they are responsible for its widespread use. An opposing figure is litotes(understatement), where a rhetor diminishes some feature of the situation that is obvious to all.(Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Pearson, 2004)To best reflect the meanings in its own context, parrhesia should be thought of as true speech: the parrhesiastes is the one who speaks the truth. Parrhesia required that the speaker use the most direct words and expressions possible in order to make it clear that whatever he might be saying wa s his own opinion. As a speech activity, parrhesia was largely limited to male citizens.(Kyle Grayson, Chasing Dragons. University of Toronto Press, 2008)What is basically at stake in parrhesia is what could be called, somewhat impressionistically, the frankness, freedom, and openness, that leads one to say what one has to say, as one wishes to say it, when one wishes to say it, and in the form one thinks is necessary for saying it. The term parrhesia is so bound up with the choice, decision, and attitude of the person speaking that the Latins translated it by, precisely, libertas [speaking freely].(Michel Foucault, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the College de France 1981--1982. Macmillan, 2005)The Fearless Speech of Malcolm XMalcolm X is the great example of parrhesia in the black prophetic tradition. The term goes back to line 24A of Platos Apology, where Socrates says, the cause of my unpopularity was my parrhesia, my fearless speech, my frank speech, my plain spee ch, my unintimidated speech. The hip hop generation talks about keeping it real. Malcolm was as real as it gets. James Brown talked about make it funky. Malcolm was always. Bring in the funk, bring in the truth, bring in the reality. . . .When Malcom looked at black life in America, he saw wasted potential; he saw unrealized aims. This kind of prophetic witness can never be crushed. There was no one like him in terms of having the courage to risk life and limb to speak such painful truths about America.(Cornel West, Firebrand. Smithsonian, February 2015)Eisenhower on the Military-Industrial ComplexWe annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative ne ed for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. . . .Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent , I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done.(President Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961)Straight Talk as a Rhetorical TropeI read S. Sara Monosons excellent work on parrhesia (frank speech) in ancient Athens. I thought, this is it--we can use this ethic of parrhesia as our own democratic ideal! But then I began to notice that our popular culture in fact already praised something like parrhesia: straight talk. Political theorists also have a similar ethic: sincerity. But the problem was that a lot of straight-talkers seemed deeply undemocratic: straight talk seemed to have become a trope, another tool of crafty politicians and smart advertising executives.(Elizabeth Markovits, The Politics of Sincerity: Plato, Frank Speech, and Democratic Judgment. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008)