The European Conversion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) is an international treaty of the Council of Europe. It was adopted in 1950, ratified by the UK in 1951 and entered into force in 1953. The unsual feature of the Convention, as an international human rights instrument, is that it provides a mechanism for individuals to enforce their Convention rights against state parties.
This chapter distinguishes the plea of State immunity from the related but different concepts of act of State and non-justiciability, focusing on the approaches taken in the UK and the US. While the doctrines of act of State and non-justiciability will normally work in the same direction as the plea of State immunity to prevent examination of the validity of a foreign State's acts, practice shows that in proceedings between private parties the court may set aside its usual respect for other States' jurisdiction where the acts of the foreign State constitute a fundamental breach of international human rights or other clearly established international law, whereas it will show hesitation in a direct suit to rule against the foreign State defendant.
One of the most recent and most effective efforts of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Inter-American Court) to increase the level of compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) has been the creation of the “conventionality control” doctrine. The Inter-American Court describes this as a “mechanism for the application of International Law,” mainly “International Human Rights Law, and specifically the American Convention and its sources, including this Court’s jurisprudence.”
This is the first in what is intended as a series of comments on current developments in the law concerning freedom of religion that will appear regularly in this Journal. This first survey deals with religious liberty challenges brought in the UK courts in 2007 and 2008. A subsequent survey will examine similar developments in international human rights law and especially before the European Court of Human Rights.
This chapter describes the revival of the fading tradition of minimum income standards for healthy living. It talks about the emerging theoretical frameworks of “basic needs” and “capabilities.” It also draws attention to the growing knowledge about health determinants and international human rights instruments, which helps guide the development of minimum income standards in a more systematic fashion. The chapter reflects on Jonathan Bradshaw's longstanding research career, in which he pioneered budget standards research in the UK, such as promoting the Family Budget Unit and developing the Low Cost but Acceptable and Modest but Adequate standards. It also describes the development of the Minimum Income Standards approach and its subsequent applications in the UK.
Tort Law and State Accountability for Overseas Violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law: The UK Perspective