Effects Of The Rule Of Law

Human rights act 1998 – specifies and enforces the rights of individuals and if these

Alternatively some argue that the executive has too much power which threatens individual rights. Therefore some suggest that a codified constitution would help to safeguard citizen’s rights because at the moment Britain has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights by passing the Human Rights Act 1998, which is considered weak as it could be overridden by Parliament due to Parliamentary sovereignty. Furthermore the European Convention on Human rights is part of UK law however its terms are not determined in the UK, whereas a codified constitution would include a statement of rights in the UK which would be controlled domestically.

A different and more modern set of values which are now applied by judges throughout the English legal system are human rights set out in the ECvHR. Since the 1950s, UK citizens have been able to pursue an action in the European Court of Human Rights, and since October 2010 have been able to raise the same issues in a UK court.

Both statutory interpretation and the Human Rights Act are a doctrine of precedent by which law is changed and justice is served. The doctrine of precedent is an essential principle of English legal system, which is a form of reasoning, interpreting and decision making formed by case law. It suggests that precedents not only have persuasive authority but must also be shadowed when similar situations arise. Any rule or principle declared by a higher court must be followed in future cases. In short the courts and tribunals are bound within prearranged restrictions by prior decisions of other superior courts. All the judges are also obliged to follow the set-up precedents established by prior decisions which is called Stare decisis. Making decisions according to precedent helps achieve two objectives. Initially it aids to maintain a system of stable laws which gives predictability to the law and affords a degree of safety for individual rights. Moreover, it ensures that the law progresses only in accordance with the developing perceptions of the community. Therefore, it more accurately mirrors the morals and prospects of the community that we live in.

Human Rights Act 1998 – Gives further legal status to the standards on Human Rights that was set out in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This highlighted the principle that all humans have the same rights and should be treated equally. This act also sets out the rights of all individuals and allows individuals to take action against authorities when their rights are affected.

The human’s rights act is very useful within the UK because it lays down the law about what rights we have. It

Australia is now the only Western democracy without a bill of rights. Its law-makers have consistently declined to introduce a bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional. Recently, in 2009, the Australian Government commissioned the most extensive consultation on human rights issues in Australia’s history – and then flatly rejected the consultation committee’s recommendation that a Human Rights Act be introduced. To observers in Europe – where courtesy of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), human rights are woven deeply into the fabric of governance- Australia’s position may be surprising, even perplexing. Why is Australia so isolated from the global trend towards introducing human rights-specific legislation? – David Kinley & Christine Ernst

The rule of law is whereby the government and all those who govern are bound by the law and everyone must follow the law. Rule of law is also known as nomocracy. Government individual officials are not entitled to make any decision which is not in accordance to the law (Paulsen, Calabresi, McConnell & Bray, 2013). All the citizens are governed by the law including those who make the laws. A. V. Dicey has highly advocated for rule of law in modern times and has popularized it. In history the idea of rule of law can be traced back to the ancient civilizations like China, Mesopotamia, and Rome among others.

This acts sets out that all people have the same rights and should be treated as equals, it also covers a personâ€TMs human rights e.g. life, education and expression.

The rule of law is treating all persons equally under the law in a society that is not run by any arbitrary power. Everyone is subject to the rules of law, including those in government and court positions; it is consistent throughout society and essential to achieving justice. An example of the rule of law being successfully applied to achieve justice in the

The reform of the Human Rights Act can illustrate that the constitutional reform did not go far enough. In 1998, the Blair government announced that the citizens ' rights would be safeguarded and strengthened through incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. However, this created a problem as the UK now has two sets of rights – those built up under Common Law and those in the Human Rights Act. These two sets of rights may conflict and, in addition, cases can be taken using these rights to both the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (which is the supreme court for the European Convention on Human Rights). The UK judiciary is divided on how to resolve this issue.

The Human Rights Act (1998) consists of sixteen fundamental rights that everybody is entitled to from birth or since the act was put into place. These sixteen rights are set out as ‘Articles’ and along with these Articles there are also ‘Protocols’ to extend and adapt new rights into the Human Rights Act. There are three main effects of the HRA: Firstly, it has subsumed the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British national law; if in any given situation there is a breach of rights, this allows people to take their cases to British courts instead of seeking justice from the European Court of

Very vaguely, the rule of law is: “the name commonly given to the state of affairs in which a legal system is legally in good shape.”

The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental components of the UK constitution as well as being a principle that is concerned with restricting parliamentary action. Though the rule of law is seen to be a component in the constitution; the actual meaning of the rule of law has been very problematic to interpret. This is considerably down to the fact that it means different things to different people as since the nineteenth century, academics, politicians and judges have proposed diverse definitions and explanations in regards to the rule of law and the role it upholds in the UK constitution.

“Rule of Law”, said Dicey in 1885, means “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative ,or even wide discretionary authority on the part of government.” (THE LAW OF CONSTITUTION 198 (8th ed.)