Challenges Facing The European Convention On Human Rights

Articles 8 and 10 of the European convention of human rights and section 6 of the human rights act 1998 relate directly to both of the key issues throughout this problem question. These problems regard towards the publication of photographs containing Brad Pitts family and Dylan Davies attendance to a gamblers anonymous meeting.

The legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet, throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy. These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal orders.

The response to the much conspicuous question that many philosophers cross-examine encompassing the Human Rights Act, remains ambiguous and divergent. 'Do we have more rights than before? ' Seems to be key topic in todays society and although the framework provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and subsequently the safeguards provided by the legislation on liberty for subjects/citizens, the effectiveness of the safeguards in terms of police power and of arrest, detention, interrogation and the handling of police complaints remains under considerable telescopic scrutiny. While the accepted definition for 'powers of arrest ' clearly states that ' 'the powers of arrest are not something to be abused by the police or by a public citizen and are powers that should only be used responsibly ' ', in the opinion of Tony Benn and Andrew Hoods (1993), authority rests with self-serving elites amd tje omdividua;s liberties envisaged by philosophers auch as Tom Paine are far from ensrhined. In fact, Tony Benn goes as far as to say that in Britain, we are in fact 'subjects ' rather than citizens. If Britain were to ever become a fairer democracy, Benn believed that that a radical and democratic ovehaul of the system is essential. While the British constitution promotes the intention of treating citizens as 'freemen ' (or women) as well as adverstise the purpose of the states existance as a mechanism to serve the citizen aas well as embody the aggregate of the

This article explains the “on-going” argument of whether or not Britain should remain in the European Union or leave. Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to keep Britain apart, winning the backing of most of most of his Cabinet and the goal of rival parties. Cameron has made it clear Britain is safer and stronger in the EU. However, much of Britain believes in opposition to their membership among the the European Union, leaving this as a constant

The European Convention on Human Rights. Exactly what is it and what are its aims? Its an international treaty which only member States of the Council of Europe may sign. The Convention lays a basic groundwork of all rights and guarantees which the States have to be held to. These rights include the freedom of though, expression, conscience, religion, effective remedy, peace enjoyment of possessions, and the right to vote and to stand for election. However, there are some limitations within these rights that need mentioning: Qualified, Absolute and Limited Rights. Absolute rights refer to the prohibition torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3). The State can never withhold or take away these rights. Limited rights, such as the right to liberty (article 5) may be limited under explicit and finite circumstances. Qualified rights are those which require a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community or state interest. These include the right to respect for private and family life (article 8), to manifest one’s religion or beliefs (Article 9), expression (Article 10), freedom of assembly and associations (article 11), the right to peaceful enjoyment of property (protocol 1, article 1), and to some extent, the right to education (protocol 1 Article 2)

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.

The European Union was established to support economic collaboration between countries by the signing of the Treaty of Rome . This Treaty proposed the idea of the four basic rights – the free movement of goods, services , workers and capital. As provided, the free movement of workers is a basic right within the European Union, and it has subsequently developed into the free movement of persons. The concept of discrimination has arisen due to numerous cases, and the Maastricht Treaty has addressed this concept. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty has consolidated the aforementioned issues and contains a set of rules on the issue of workers within the EU.

This paper will analyze one of the most fundamental rules of law in criminal law, the Principle of Legality under the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found in Article 7 ECHR. “Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege” (“no crime without law, no punishment without law”- NCSL), is often referred to as the Principle of Legality in many legal contexts. It is considered a human right and also at the heart of many national criminal legal systems. It is a crucial element of legal defense to a criminal prosecution in which no crime or punishment can exist without a legal ground. It is a guarantee of human liberty; it ensures the fairness and transparency of the judicial authority and it protects individuals from state abuse and

There are a lot of features in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pham) that could be considered as constitutionally significant, however, for the purpose of an acute analysis of the case, this essay will focus its discussion on the areas of judicial review and on the competences of the European Union in the United Kingdom. This essay will argue that Pham is a constitutionally significant case as it played an important role towards an addition of a ground of judicial review. This essay will also argue that this progression had been long overdue and is evident from previous judgments from previous cases. There will also be discussions about the possible reasons for this delayed development. However, this essay will disagree with the long-winded route that the courts took to reach to this conclusion, which the progression is seen in the judgment of Pham. Regarding the competences of the EU in the UK, this essay will argue that EU has no competence to decide on the British nationality and will also briefly discuss the possible impacts Brexit could have on the British constitution basing on the facts of Pham.

The European Community (EC) has expressed through treaty provision and case law that the protection of the fundamental rights of EC citizens is vitally important. However, the EC itself is not currently bound to a set of agreed fundamental rights. For years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has respected and protected fundamental rights by considering the position of state constitutions and the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, the ECJ is not bound to follow these. It is not bound to the ECHR, as it is not a signatory.

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), outlines the various rights of citizens in European nations, giving explicit power to the European courts (ECtHR), as well as domestic courts, with regard to the violation of these rights in the member states of the European Union. One thing to note is that the ECHR cannot be enacted without referring to the Human Rights Act (HRA) of 1998, which was inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) at Geneva in 1948. The aim of this essay is to therefore to discuss how the powers are distributed particularly between the executive (ministers and cabinet) and the judiciary by the Human Rights Act, whether the element of separation of powers is hindered in this event, and to

and the European Court of Human Rights has “entered a few judgments holding that schools have been illegally segregated.” Yet despite UNESCO’s attempts to aid Gypsy children, Fletcher believes that the European government is not trying hard enough, since “no European or national judicial or administrative organ has ordered the cessation of segregation in any school, nor have they addressed the principal means of evasion, white flight. Instead, they have left corrective action to uncoordinated, unconstrained municipalities” (Fletcher 919). Therefore, a small step for European governments to take is to implement anti-bullying programs in schools starting in the younger grades. Additionally, they should promote an overall atmosphere of acceptance in their countries, as a method of demonstrating that as a developed continent, they have the means of helping the Gypsies and these must be used. By promoting equality among the population, less bullying will be tolerated and Gypsy children will be more comfortable going to school and becoming healthy citizens. Moreover, adult Gypsy citizens who seek an education to gain qualifications for getting a job, should also be granted access to education. With a more educated population, Gypsies will be able to contribute to their nation’s economy and break free from a life of plagued by poverty, unemployment, and crime.

It is established that the UK does not have a single, written and codified constitution that encompasses ground rules on how it should be governed. The first part of this essay outlines the movement of the United Kingdom towards legal constitutionalism which then brings to the consideration of the need for judicial diversity in the second part. To make this argument, this paper analyses the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union (EU) law including domestic laws onto the dilution of political elements in the UK; thus transitioning towards a legal constitution.

It is important to set the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights in context by examining the development of rights within the European Union. The embryo organisation that commenced the EU (The Coal and Steel Community 1951) was introduced in the wake of World War II to rebuild Europe by economically tying previously warring nations together. The consensus amongst the "heavy weights" of the EU was, if member states were economically invested in each other to ensure financial stability within their own state, future conflicts would be avoided. The EU had taken the role of a purely economic organisation which explains why it was not focused on social issues such as human rights, leaving such matters to individual member states to determine. Then came the political advancement of the 1990s, as evidenced by Weiler; ‘[The Maastricht Treaty] appropriates the deepest symbols of statehood: European citizenship, defence and foreign policy’. Naturally, the issue of human rights became prominent within the EU, and after much debate and a Convention the Charter was passed and given legally binding status under the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. The Charter has proved to be a controversial issue within European politics, with doubts being voiced about the functionality of the European Union’s own “Bill of Rights”. To effectively assess the question at hand, this essay will evaluate the extent to which the Charter is a necessary and desirable development, before reaching an overall

The European Union (EU) was established in order to prevent the horrors of modern warfare, experienced by most of Europe during the World Wars of the 20th century, from ever ensuing again, by aiming to create an environment of trust with the countries of Europe cooperating in areas such as commerce, research and trade (Adams, 2001). The EU has evolved into an economic, trade, political and monetary alliance between twenty-eight European Member States. While not all Member States are in monetary union (i.e. share the currency of the euro), those that are form the ‘Euro-zone’ (Dinan, 2006). The EU can pass a number of types of legislation, with a regulation, act, or law, being the most powerful. Its ‘tricameral’ (European Union, 2007)