The Role of Human Rights Protection in a Democracy
The Human Rights Act has significantly altered the British constitution. As a result, courts in the United Kingdom gained increased discretion in determining whether government universities were abiding by the ECHR’s human rights provisions. There is an ability of British citizens in the UK to govern, by their Parliament’s elected representatives. A good democracy, on the other hand, is built on more than democratic representation. Individual freedom and human rights must be respected by the legislative, executive, and other branches of the government. The question of what constitutes a basic human right has been hotly debated since the Magna Carta. When it comes to human rights and basic freedoms, there is considerable disagreement over what constitutes an infringement[1]. Elections often give legislators the power to decide how constitutional freedoms are balanced against the needs of the larger community. It is possible that minorities and other marginalised groups would be subjected to discrimination or unjust treatment in a majority-rule political system. Even more importantly, the regular running of state affairs is controlled through the executive, having a considerable impact on Parliament through government. Individual rights would be less protected, and public agencies will have a harder time being held fully accountable for the way they use their broad powers as a result of this[2].
Consequently, there is an active role authorised to the courts to preserve individual rights at the time of the last 50 decades or more. For the United Kingdom, this tendency is not exclusive; also, elected governments across the world have been experiencing it for some time now. This is a job for which some people worry that judges lack the political legitimacy to carry out. Judiciary safeguards of human rights, however, might be seen as beneficial to democratic nations.
Those without political influence are better protected, and their rights are considered more important, this norm was featured as a “culture of justification” which is created for the benefit of every citizen and to balance the executive authority of the parliament. Through a long period of political and judicial history, these values have been ingrained in British constitutional culture. The fight between Parliament and the Crown in the seventeenth century established the prevailing government dominance and built the foundation for religious tolerance and respect for freedom of expression. Across the next centuries, the right to vote spread and a culture of personal liberty and abiding to the rule of law was solidified throughout the country[3].
The Active Role of the Courts in Preserving Individual Rights
A “last resort” court for human rights protection is provided by the European Court of Human Rights (often construed to as the Strasbourg Court), which is located in Strasbourg, France. A petition to the ECHR can be filed by anybody who has exhausted all local resources and believes that their Constitutional rights have been infringed[4]. All European countries (with the exception of Belarus) have pledged to recognise and implement the decisions of the Court. The data shows that the ECHR and the HRA have improved promotion and protection of human in the UK. Human rights legislation in the United Kingdom has also seen important changes in the last few decades garnered positive assessments from legal experts as well as members of the court and policymakers. However, it has also received a great deal of negative feedback from other corners as well. A new “Bill of Rights” and a major overhaul of the European Court of Human Rights have been proposed by some. Because of this new Commission on a Bill of Rights, that has been tasked with studying whether UK Bill of Rights should be adopted to “protect and extend” current rights, has been established[5].
“The Human Rights Act provides the citizens with a detailed explanation of his or her rights and obligations. It also mandates that “all of us in government service must adhere to human rights principles in all we do”.[6] In 1998, the Prime Minister made this comment, which came barely a year before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Incorporating the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR, this instrument entered into force on the 2nd of October 2000. On the 4th of November 1950, the Council of Europe, a continental organisation that today has 46 member nations, produced a pact that would become the foundation of the United Nations. The ECHR, which has its headquarters in Strasbourg, is the primary authority in charge of the interpretation and execution of the Convention and its Protocols. The first article of the Convention requires all signatory nations to ensure that the rights guaranteed by its provisions are protected for everyone who comes under their authority. With this, in addition to enacting effective legislation, member states must develop processes that allow effective redress in the event that a right guaranteed by the ECHR is violated. Although it was intended to be primary law in the United Kingdom, to serve as a foundation for other legislation. Government officials in the United Kingdom hoped that this Act would serve as a first Bill of Rights both for British citizens and non-British nationals living in the country. A new symbol for the United Kingdom, a symbol of human rights, has also been anticipated as a possible outcome of this legislation.
The history of Human Rights Protection in the British Constitution
Prior to the Act, the White Paper “Rights Brought Home” announced the beginning of a new era in the defence of the rights of all citizens of the United Kingdom. Convention-guaranteed freedoms and rights “have long been deemed in this nation to be achievable under our british law,” the paper stated. Another recent development has been a growing understanding that the legal system alone is no longer adequate, and that incorporation must be implemented.” Since Parliament had no power to overturn legislation, the Act’s principal purpose was to provide judicial decisions the largest degree of discretionary jurisdiction they possibly have to protect human rights. Any current human rights safeguards in the country are not affected by the Act. The ECHR, on the other hand, created a set of minimal requirements that may be adapted to the unique circumstances of each individual. It also includes a variety of other rights, such as privacy rights, rights for homosexuals and transgender people, and so forth[7].
With respect to this, it is quite important to note that it put direct negative as well as positive responsibilities on public authorities to act in compliance with the principles of human rights and international humanitarian law. “With time, the Bill is likely to contribute to the cultural establishment of human rights in the UK,” said then Home Secretary Jack Straw. The Bill may go down in history as one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament. “. This implies that the Act would change certain services in the nature of public interest in order to enhance both the quality as well as their delivery for inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Act was designed to strengthen the sense of belonging to the United Kingdom by bringing inhabitants of the United Kingdom closer together and uniting them behind a shared ideology. “…we urgently want more exciting and more accessible notions of citizenship,” historian Linda Colley remarked in her speech to Prime Minister David Cameron: “… What basically appears to be required is construed as the new century charter or contract of citizen’s rights”,[8]according to my assessment. “The Human Rights Act is a foundation of our commitment to reform the Constitution,” the Home Office, the Department at the time responsible for the Act’s implementation, stated in response. It is considered to be “one amongst the essential parts of constitutional legislation of the United Kingdom has ever seen.”
The European Court of Human Rights
There can be no question that the Human Rights Act has proven to be effective with regard to preserving the wide range of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights up until this point. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that a variety of practical issues have emerged over the time. The United Kingdom, for instance, is among the few member nations that have not yet fully implemented all of the provisions pertaining to the European Convention on Human Rights, with many reservations still in force. Also, despite the fact that the Act has the potential to become the country’s first Bill of Rights, it is still not regarded in that capacity. The ideals that underpin it and are primarily seen as legal protections rather than as a rule of conduct that promotes a human rights culture in society. People working in public services, such as the health and social care system, local government, public transportation, and schools, are becoming more aware of potential human rights abuses. This is done, however, primarily out of fear of future legal repercussions. Parliament’s Human Rights Committee has lately slammed the government for not executing their promises to utilise the Act to enhance public services in relation to all the British people. In summary, despite significant progress – specifically in the areas of criminal justice as well as immigration – front-line services are still lagging behind in terms of establishing as well as sustaining a human rights culture that is consistent with the Act.
A more inclusive democracy is protected by the Act, which aims to promote and safeguard European knowledge and understanding and values rather than those of the United States. To provide only two examples, when ruling on Kjeldsen Busk Madson and Peterson v Belgium[9] and Handyside v UK[10], the European Court of Human Rights said that the fundamental principles of democracy should be recognised, respected, and applied as vital components of democratic societies throughout Europe. As a result, all government acts, especially those relating to public services, should be characterised by “pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness.” In the case of Young, James, and Webster v UK[11], it was said that “democracy does not entail the opinions of the majority should always triumph; a balance is required to be established such that the fair and correct treatment of minority while avoiding any abuse of a dominant position.” Citizens of the United Kingdom are therefore reminded that Human rights as well as democracy are not always associated with the idea of majority, and also minorities, asylum seekers, as well as immigrants may all play a key role in the defining and thereby application of these principles.
The Effectiveness of Human Rights Legislation in the United Kingdom
Individuals who believe on the notion of Convention rights have been infringed can seek redress against the executive under the Human Rights Act. Importantly, the Act does not affect the constitutional control of Parliament, which is essential. UK courts are required to interpret laws in a way that is “as far as possible” compatible with Convention rights, according to Section 3 of the Human Rights Act.[12].
An incompatibility declaration may be issued by the courts when an interpretation of the HRA is not possible. This is a statement that outlines their legal opinion that a particular piece of law conflicts with this right. In contrast, a declaration of this kind has no legal weight. Because the court has identified an issue with the Constitution’s compatibility, the goal of this letter is to stoke the debate. The European Parliament continues to be the last arbiter of human rights, regardless of the breadth and depth of such rights.[13]
All the features of a Bill of Rights are included in the Human Rights Act of 1998. People in the UK, as well as those outsides of the country, stand to gain greatly from it in a variety of ways. People who utilise government services will benefit from the creation of a human rights culture, which, if properly implemented, will lead to better outcomes for everyone. In addition, there is a possibility for enhancing the people’s sense of belongingness to their country and functioning as a new symbol of unification for the country. With the help of the Act’s principles, individuals may learn how to treat each other in a way that respects human rights while also being welcomed freely because it is the finest and most enjoyable option conceivable, without fear of legal action. New rights, public service reforms and human rights law have made progress in this area but there is still more work to be done to ensure that the Act fulfils its commitment to protect citizens’ rights and liberties. When it comes to its influence on people of the United Kingdom in particular, the Act is still regarded as a legal technicality that is rarely employed as a rule of conduct that might improve the life quality. Although case law is significant, specifically in cases where the Act established rights that had not previously been protected, it is not the primary means of promoting a human rights culture within the United Kingdom. Anti-discrimination law in England and Wales of the 1970s is yet to be entirely updated, despite a number of improvements that have taken place[14].
Finally, it is required to be noted that striking the correct balance among recognising the decisions of elected officials while still preserving individual rights is difficult to do. In any case, the existing condition of human rights law within the United Kingdom seems to be consistent with regard to the constitutional principles, according to the government. This looks to strike a reasonable compromise between the need to preserve individual rights while also respecting democratic principles. Attempting to re-establish that equilibrium may prove to be a tough and thankless endeavour. Because the existing condition of UK human rights legislation is both principled as well as functional, it may also be unneeded, given that the bill is moot as long as Parliament, the government, as well as the courts continue to communicate directly with one another.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
