penny lane
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
I am in desperate need of help!

Can anyone suggest some arguments why the Human Rights Act (particularly sections 3, 4 and 19) have changed the doctrine of parliamentary sovereinty?

Alternatively, if you could suggest why some might say it remains "unchanged" and then refute this view, that would be amazing!

Seriously, any help would be so much appreciated!
0
reply
liamb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
Sorry I'd have posted this earlier but I hit the wrong side of the mouse and wiped the answer (Broken finger from rugby yesterday...) Here goes:

The 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) has undermined Parliamentary Sovereignty in a number of ways. First, it limits the actions of future parliaments. Should a future parliament debate the re-introduction of capital (or even corporal) punishment or allow torture to be used on suspects then the only thing stopping them should be Parliament itself - that is after all what Parliamentary Sovereignty means. No body, no person or foreign treaty should be able to restrict Parliament, only MPs (or the Lords in the case of the 42 Days detention Bill) can stop a bill by voting it down. Furthermore, the HRA has changed the role of judges. As a result of HRA judges are now seen as more proactive and outspoken on Human Rights issues. Also decisions like the Belmarsh Prison case in 2003 have angered the government which claims the judges are putting their own spin on HRA and not considering the rights of society as a whole when dealing with terrorism. This activism and outspokenness in the media is more like that of the US Supreme Court than the traditions of the UK Legal System.

However, it can be argued that the HRA has done nothing and was little more than window dressing by New Labour in its early days of government. The HRA is just another act of parliament that can be repealed by any future parliament - hence it isn't 'entrenched'. (Cameron has said he will do just that in any future Tory administration and replace HRA with a Bill of Rights). Furthermore, the new anti-terror laws introduced after 9/11 show both the government and Parliament ignore HRA when it suits them showing Parliamentary Sovereignty is alive and kicking. (For example making it illegal to demonstrate within 250 m of the Houses of Parliament). In addition the State still wins 90% of the cases involving HRA that are brought against it. Moreover, just after 7/7 Blair warned the judges 'the rules of the game have changed' re-asserting Parliamentary Sovereignty over the judges publicly. Therefore HRA hasn't even dented Parliamentary Sovereignty and the only time it gets noticed is on the rare occasions the State loses in court.

If this isn't enough, check out my wiki:
http://liambellamywiki.wikispaces.com/
3
reply
TheMeister
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
(Original post by liamb)
Sorry I'd have posted this earlier but I hit the wrong side of the mouse and wiped the answer (Broken finger from rugby yesterday...) Here goes:

The 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) has undermined Parliamentary Sovereignty in a number of ways. First, it limits the actions of future parliaments. Should a future parliament debate the re-introduction of capital (or even corporal) punishment or allow torture to be used on suspects then the only thing stopping them should be Parliament itself - that is after all what Parliamentary Sovereignty means. No body, no person or foreign treaty should be able to restrict Parliament, only MPs (or the Lords in the case of the 42 Days detention Bill) can stop a bill by voting it down. Furthermore, the HRA has changed the role of judges. As a result of HRA judges are now seen as more proactive and outspoken on Human Rights issues. Also decisions like the Belmarsh Prison case in 2003 have angered the government which claims the judges are putting their own spin on HRA and not considering the rights of society as a whole when dealing with terrorism. This activism and outspokenness in the media is more like that of the US Supreme Court than the traditions of the UK Legal System.

However, it can be argued that the HRA has done nothing and was little more than window dressing by New Labour in its early days of government. The HRA is just another act of parliament that can be repealed by any future parliament - hence it isn't 'entrenched'. (Cameron has said he will do just that in any future Tory administration and replace HRA with a Bill of Rights). Furthermore, the new anti-terror laws introduced after 9/11 show both the government and Parliament ignore HRA when it suits them showing Parliamentary Sovereignty is alive and kicking. (For example making it illegal to demonstrate within 250 m of the Houses of Parliament). In addition the State still wins 90% of the cases involving HRA that are brought against it. Moreover, just after 7/7 Blair warned the judges 'the rules of the game have changed' re-asserting Parliamentary Sovereignty over the judges publicly. Therefore HRA hasn't even dented Parliamentary Sovereignty and the only time it gets noticed is on the rare occasions the State loses in court.

If this isn't enough, check out my wiki:
http://liambellamywiki.wikispaces.com/
This helped me a lot, thanks.
0
reply
catty_MERTON
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
what unit or chapter is it for? is it for as a2?
0
reply
LucDA1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
it is for AS. (Year 12) The main chapter it focuses on is the Constitution
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you do not get the A-level grades you want this summer, what is your likely next step?

Take autumn exams (159)
45.56%
Take exams next summer (53)
15.19%
Change uni choice through clearing (82)
23.5%
Apply to uni next year instead (39)
11.17%
I'm not applying to university (16)
4.58%

Watched Threads

View All