Injecting Law into Politics and Politics into Law: Legislative and Judicial Perspectives on Constitutional Human Rights
Law, unlike political theory, is capable of providing minimum standards for objective assessments of the rightness and wrongness of political actions. Constitutional rights can affect the rule-making process in Parliament by influencing legislators and the executive, as well as judges, with specific ideas of right and wrong. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has provided a means of injecting such ideas into the legislative process, allowing Parliament to address human rights issues and forcing the executive to do so. The article analyses the ways in which human rights law has been allowed to affect law-making. It then considers whether the need for judges to enforce human rights has led judges to undertake activities that are more political than previously. To this end the article examines the techniques of self-discipline developed to ensure that the judiciary stays within its constitutional authority, illustrates how the proper relationship between judges, Parliament and the executive depends on context, and explores the effect of these developments on possible criteria for judicial legitimacy, including accountability and representativeness. It concludes that the interplay of human rights law and political judgment has had a positive impact, helping to open up and structure legislation and policy-making.