The executive has often been entangled in serious allegations vis-a-vis the detainee rights and after 9/11 Terror Attacks, the legal system of the western countries like UK and USA has often come under close scrutiny and criticism by conservatives, liberals, immigrants and human rights activists. However, despite the criticisms, the human rights protection legislation framework in UK has reasonably protected the rights of the detainees and in the 21st century, the English Courts have considerably upheld the issue of human rights in a sensible way. The first point of argument is that the situation of the rights of detainees in UK is much better at least after the enactment of the Human Rights Act1. Unswerving incorporation of the European Convention directives into the English statutory instruments appears to have led to a constructive and effective justice system in the country. Although the inclusion of the European Convention on Human Rights2 in the human rights legislation of UK could have given rise to a continued dilemma between domestic and international law enforcement, things like that did not occur. The Convention provides much flexible yet practical ways to orchestrate its provisions with the domestic laws. ...Show more
Title Page Public Law (European Convention on Human Rights): The Rights of Detainees This paper is aimed at critically reviewing the extent to which it can be considered that the English Courts have upheld the responsibility within the European Convention on Human Rights to treat people with dignity and respect…
The basis on which Wicket World would defend the claim would be founded on a number of provisions of the law as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, 1998. The claim according to Article 8 on right to privacy is however limited by Article 18 that limits on use of restriction of rights.
This division is largely jurisdictional, based on the differences between immigration law and criminal law, as well as being technical in founding the division on the notion of difference between the rights of a citizen and non-citizen. The nature of human rights is for them to apply to all people regardless of race, nationality, sex, or ideology.
Analysis of exception to the jurisdiction clauses as discussed in Assanidze v Georgia Article I of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) demands the Member Nations to offer security to every individual within their territory or jurisdiction, and the freedom and rights contained in Section 1 of the Convention.
The salient features of the articles under the Human Rights Act 1998 are Right to life, Right to protection against torture, Right to protection against deprivation of liberty, Right to a fair hearing, Right to respect for private and family life, Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Right to freedom of expression, and Right to non-discrimination.
A thriving and robust democracy, it is often said, can only be achieved when basic human rights are preserved. Cherished principles like press freedom, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are indispensable requirements of a democratic society. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to argue against the validity of these principles.
They also signed 5 other protocols. The main objectives of the Convention are to maintain and protect the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, to achieve the unity between the members of the European Countries, to implement collectively the Human Rights proclaimed by General Assembly of United Nations as Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10.12.1948.
Used injudiciously, it could set the world on fire. Can any state set parameters within which this right should be exercised
Freedom of expression ranks among the inalienable rights. It is the basic tenet around which much of Western society has been built.
The Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) 1992 involved the creation of the European Union. UK incorporated of the EC law into domestic law by European Communities Act 1972. By virtue of ss .2 (1), 2(2), and 2(4) EC law was directly incorporated.1
Art. 221 provide that the Court of Justice will consist of fifteen judges.
That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory"
In December 2004, the House of Lords, UK, opposed Britain's detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism indefinitely and held without trial.