The Role of General Principles in E.U. Law as Opaque and Uncertain

It was “solemnly” proclaimed that “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UNDHR] states a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community” . The UNDHR gave value to the term ‘human rights’, stressing the value of human dignity. However, the article also recognises the need for social order, Article 29 acknowledges that limits to these rights must be determined by law and can only be for the purposes of securing recognition and respect of others and to meet “the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society”. Any restriction on these rights has to be justified as proportionate to the aims pursued by the restriction, for example, a police officer is justified in wielding a firearm against an individual deemed to be putting other lives in

I knew of some controversy regarding the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), mostly in relation to judge’s role and the issues with judicial review. I think its poor reputation is interesting, when considering the nature of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR). The convention had British influences and drafters. We discussed how this reputation is in part based on the general misinformation and lack of knowledge. I recognise the HRA’s limitations and the issues it raises regarding parliamentary sovereignty. However, I learnt during our session that before the HRA the UK relied on ‘whatever was not prohibited was allowed’. This resulted in rights being abused and it was thereby necessary to incorporate them into domestic law to avoid

However, since at the universal level it has adopted a number of international treaties concerning universal human rights, there is a very relevant question of what should be meant by the universality of human rights and what its limits are. There is no consensus on this issue (Beitz, 2009).

The purpose of this project is to build on the existing literature regarding the International Human Rights regimes, with the goal of bridging a gap between the diffusion of international norms and changes in domestic respect for human rights. Due to a lack of formal enforcement mechanisms, it is difficult to punish states that violate its citizen’s human rights. One solution is to examine the role of international norms that are established and promoted via international treaties and organizations. If international norms are working, we should expect to see a process of diffusion taking place; states would improve their respect of human rights over time, but also in respect to their neighboring states. This would increase the global level

The European Court of Human Rights; which focuses on humanities basic necessities, was created in the UK after World War two after Adolf Hitler’s horrific actions in the ‘Nazi’ Germany: After such events forty countries signed a waiver agreeing to abide by such laws, but these countries do not have to be in the European Union. Alongside the European Court of Human Rights there are also the European courts of Justice; which focus on what is right and wrong; every country within the European Union must abide by these laws which consist of twenty-eight countries, soon to be twenty-seven countries if the United Kingdom leaves and Brexit takes a full action to leave.

The aim of this essay is to critically evaluate the statement 'The European Convention on Human Rights exists to guarantee legal protection to fundamental rights'. It will examine how rights are protected in law and the way the UK approaches the protection of these rights. Explanation will be made of the way that the UK addresses the implementation of the rights in the English legal system. Issues such as conflicting rights and legal limitations will also be considered. An evaluation will be made of whether or not The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the fundamental rights of UK citizens as contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘EU policies and EU legislation need to be based on objective, reliable and comparable date on the respect of fundamental rights in the EU.’ After enforcing the Charter of Fundamental rights as primary law, the national courts have been using the Charter frequently on different cases. The Charter had a great impact upon the nationals Court’s decision on protecting social rights related to employment and labour law. This essay will focus on the development of the Charter within the EU law through different cases. The first part of the essay will be based on a historical background, to give a better understanding of the social rights and the development and evolution of those rights throughout the years. The second part of

The adherence to NCSL is fairly obvious in most European Union countries that adapted and amended their legislations accordingly to the EU legislation. The observance of the principle as applicable and effective is seen in the existent case law in Europe. However, what must be stressed is that the European Union is not bound by the ECHR because fundamental/human rights remained absent from the EU founding treaties in 1951 and 1957. The EU is bound by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It lays down all the same rights held by the Convention and is considered to be the most modern codification of fundamental rights in the world. EU Member States are obligated to incorporate EU law and ECHR law into their national law. This subjects

The Labour Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998 to give further effect to the European Convention on human rights in UK domestic law .Therefore, by incorporating convention rights, higher judge’s powers of discretion where increased, by allowing them to interpret Convention rights “wherever possible, and to scrutinize Parliamentary legislation under declarations of incompatibility. Therefore, by increasing judge’s powers, this essay will analyse whether this has created a constitutional shift, where sovereignty is now shared between higher judges (judiciary) and Westminster Parliament (Legislator), with further reference to the impact of UK Judges following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (i.e. Strasbourg), which will

The provisions of the Universal Declaration entered into international law in the 1970s when two enabling covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and two Optional Protocols were endorsed by a sufficient number of member states of the United Nations. In the decades since, more than two dozen other human rights treaties have made the protection of certain basic human rights part of evolving standards of international law, even for states which have not formally endorsed them.

The common law and human rights both provide important protections for individuals, groups and society in general. Along with this benefit, however, both human rights and the common law have shortcomings with their protections which are limited or lost for many reasons, depending on the particular subject matter, the solutions required, statutory intervention, or the parties involved. The protection of rights and freedoms must remain aware of both human rights and the common law because the best outcome requires the considered use of both.

Let me start by defining basic human rights which the UN member countries agreed to provide to there citizens they are :

“Omission” is a phrase that is only used correctly when there is a failure to commit an act, or do a minimal act to which a reasonable person may be expected to do. This essay will show that the exceptions added to the “checklist” of omissions should exist, and argue that having no liability for omissions is defensible.

he government is to reform the long standing general rule of English law under which a person can only enforce a contract if he or she is a party to it. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill is progressing through Parliament and is expected to be enacted in the summer of 1999. It will come into force six months after enactment, but it will not apply to contracts entered into before it comes into force (FirstSource, PLC, 1999, X(1), 57).

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