Prima Facie Discrimination: Is Tranchemontagne Consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s Human Rights Code Jurisprudence?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
The Supreme Court

Toward a Progressive Realisation of Socio-economic Rights in Ghana: A Socio-legal Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-113
Author(s):  
Nana Tawiah Okyir
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Policy ◽  
National Development ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article argues for the strengthening and entrenchment of socio-economic rights provisions in Ghana's jurisprudence. The purpose of this entrenchment is to engender judicial activism in promoting more creative pathways for enforcing socio-economic rights in Ghana. The article traces the development of socio-economic rights in Ghana's jurisprudence, especially the influence of the requirements of the international rights movement, particularly of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The article delves into the constitutional history of Ghana and its impact on the evolution of rights in the country. Of particular historical emphasis is the emergence of socio-economic rights under the Directive Principles of State Policy in the 1979 Constitution. However, the significance of the socio-economic rights only became profound with the return to democratic rule under the 1992 Constitution, again under a distinct chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy. However, unlike its counterpart, the chapter on the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, which is directly enforceable, the Directive Principles of State Policy were not. It took the Supreme Court of Ghana a series of landmark decisions until finally, in 2008, it arrived at a presumption of justiciability in respect of all of the provisions in the 1992 Constitution. It is evident that prior to this, the Supreme Court was not willing to apply the same standards of adjudication and enforcement as it ordinarily applies in respect of rights under the chapter on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms. Having surmounted the non-justiciability hurdle, what is left is for the courts to begin to vigorously pursue an agenda that puts socio-economic rights at the centre of Ghana's rights adjudication framework. The article draws on comparative experiences from India and South Africa to showcase the extent of judicial creativity in rights adjudication. In India, the courts have been able to work around provisions restricting the enforcement of Directive Principles by often connecting them to Fundamental Freedoms. In South Africa, there is no hierarchy between civil and political rights on the one hand and socio-economic rights on the other; for that reason, the courts give equal ventilation to both sets of rights. The article further analyses these examples in the light of ongoing constitutional reforms in Ghana. It argues that these reforms fall short of the activism required to propel socio-economic rights adjudication to the forefront in Ghana's jurisprudence. In this regard, the article proposes social movements as a viable tool for socio-economic rights advocacy by recounting its success in previous controversial issues in Ghana. The article also connects this to other important building blocks like building socio-economic rights into a national development blueprint. Overall, the article calls for an imaginative socio-economic rights enforcement approach that is predicated on legislation, judicial activism, social movements and a national development blueprint aimed at delivering a qualitative life for the Ghanaian.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
National School ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Impact

The special edition of the national professional scientific and practical legal magazine “The Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraine” was published, which contains reports delivered at the online conference "Ensuring the unity of judicial practise: the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and standards of the Council of Europe", held on the occasion of the third anniversary of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. time of thematic sessions and webinars for judges of each of the courts of cassation in the Supreme Court, as well as joint sessions for judges of different jurisdictions at the end of 2020. The National School of Judges of Ukraine held these events together with the Supreme Court and in synergy with the Council of Europe projects "Support to Judicial Reform in Ukraine", "Further Support for Ukraine's Implementation in the Context of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights", USAID New Justice Program, OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine. These are projects that support various aspects of judicial reform in Ukraine, compliance with Council of Europe standards and recommendations, offering best practices from member states to help make priorities in the national reform process. The conference and training events were attended by more than 550 participants - judges of the Supreme Court, other courts, leading Ukrainian and foreign experts, representatives of the legal community. Trainers and all structural subdivisions of the National School of Judges of Ukraine were involved, the training activities of which were identified by the CCEJ in one of its conclusions as one of the important tools to ensure the unity of judicial practice. Programs of activities included reports on the role of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in ensuring the unity of judicial practice and the impact on the legal system; unity of judicial practice in the context of standards - improving access to justice in Ukraine: removing procedural obstacles and ensuring the right to an impartial court, approaches to identifying cases of minor complexity and cases of significant public interest or exceptional importance for a party in the context of access to court of cassation: practice the supreme courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights; key positions of the Supreme Court - application of the provisions of the procedural codes on the grounds for transferring the case to the Chamber, the joint chamber or the Supreme Court, the impact of its decisions on legislative activity, ensuring the specialization of courts and judges, the practice of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court on administrative cases, the practice of considering cases of disciplinary liability of judges, conclusions on the rules of criminal law, review of court decisions in criminal proceedings in exceptional circumstances; the impact of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the case law of national courts and the justification of court decisions and the "balance of rights" in civil cases in its practice, the development of the doctrine of human rights protection; ECtHR standards on evidence and the burden of proof, the conclusions of the CCEJ and their reflection in judicial practice; judicial rule-making in the activities of European courts of cassation, etc. The issues raised are analyzed in the Ukrainian and international contexts from report to report, which, we hope, will be appreciated by every lawyer - both practitioners and theorists. As well as the fact that the depth of disclosure of each of the topics through the practice of application serves the development of law and contributes to the formation of the unity of judicial practice of the Supreme Court, the creation of case law is a contribution to rulemaking and lawmaking. The conversion of intellectual discourse into the practice of Ukrainian courts is an important step towards strengthening public confidence in the judiciary. And here the unifying force of the Supreme Court can be especially important, as the Chairman of the Supreme Court Valentyna Danishevska rightly remarked, speaking about the expectations of the society.

ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity of a person under article 1 of the protocol no. 6: Individual interpretations of the essence and consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-267
Author(s):  
Bohdan V. Shchur ◽  
Iryna V. Basysta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Method Comparison ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual

In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations

Pandemic and PILs: A Study on the Approach of the High Courts in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Sourya Bandyopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

Studies in Public interest Litigation (PIL) in India are predominantly about the Supreme Court's approach in meeting the ends of justice through indigenously evolved jurisdiction. The High Courts as important constitutional bodies are more often than not remain out of detailed discussion. As the High Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with regard to PILs, this paper aims to study the pattern of invocation of the jurisdiction at the regional level. It surveys the variety of pleas and consequent action under PIL jurisdiction (or inaction, as the case may be) of different High Courts in India relating to covid crisis and consequential matters. To that end, it undertakes a survey of High Court orders or judgments from April to July, 2020. It seeks to lay bare the extent of demands that are made before the Courts through PIL. What kinds of action were expected from the High Courts during the pandemic? How did different Courts respond to such pleas? Were the directions and level of response homogenous or varied? The paper pursues these questions, and describes the pandemic though the lens of PIL in Indian High Courts. It goes on to argue that the High Courts in India need to take greater cognizance of their orders inter-se especially in PIL matters, as human rights protection through PIL cannot have contradictory voices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document