The Extent to Which the Human Rights Act of 1998 Strengthened the Rule of Law in the U.K. Constitution

Human Rights Act 1998 – is an Act that gives legal effect in the UK to certain fundamental rights and freedoms contained in

Human Rights Act 1998 - The Human Rights Act means that residents of the United Kingdom will now be able to seek help from the courts if they believe that their human rights have been infringed.

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

He came up with the idea that the different powers and responsibilities of government should be separated from each other. This prevents anyone from becoming an absolutist dictator. The founding fathers wanted a government of the people, for the people so they had to incorporate separation of powers into the constitution so we will not have any one man with all the power. There are other ideas that influenced the constitution but separation of powers in by far the most influential because it is such a big part of how our country was designed. However there was a philosophy that played a big role in the making of our

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.

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.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?

In 1789 he earned a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, he became an important force behind the Bill of Rights, and submitted his suggestions for the amendments to the Constitution to Congress in 1789. He wanted to ensure that americans had the freedom of speech, were protected against searches and seizures, and received a speedy and public trial. A revised version of his proposal was adopted soon after, following much debate.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (also known as the Act or the HRA) came into force in the United Kingdom in October 2000. It is composed of a series of sections that have the effect of codifying the protections in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. All public bodies (such as courts, police, local governments, hospitals, publicly funded schools, and others) and other bodies carrying out public functions have to comply with the Convention rights. The Human Rights Act protects individuals from torture (mental, physical or both), inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and deportation or extradition (being sent to another country to face criminal charges) if there is a real risk that they will face

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

Based on analysis from these four cases, conclusions regarding the effectiveness of human rights policy will be discussed.

However, although their rights were recognised starting from 1900s, some argue that it is insufficient as Australia does not has a ‘Bill of Rights’ and the Constitution is not a document which focus on human rights (Bailey 2008; Owen 2010). Despites of the claims, there is no need for the Australian government to have a ‘Bill of Right’ as the third element of Rule of Law already ensures the protection of human rights and natural justice. Plus, having a ‘Bill of Rights’ means that it will be likely subjected to High Court’s interpretation and will not guarantee protection of human rights.

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 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.