Human Rights Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom Part 1

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merris Amos
2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Morawa

On 11 July 2002, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Eur. Ct. H.R.) ruled unanimously in the cases of Goodwin and I v. the United Kingdom that the failure of British law to recognize gender re-assignment and to permit male to female transsexuals to marry persons of their newly opposite sex violated the applicants’ right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) and to marry (Article 12). These two cases, apart from constituting an explicit deviation from previous constant jurisprudence, gave the Court (sitting as a Grand Chamber) an opportunity to creatively apply its longstanding interpretative principles, including the search for a ‘common European approach’ – now increasingly an ‘international trend’ –, in order to evolve human rights law. The following observations will focus on this aspect, while paying due attention to the other implications of the present cases. Finally, the two cases will be placed in the context of the current jurisprudence of the Court which, unfortunately, does not show a consistent tendency to progressively advance human rights law.


1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Robin Cooke

In this address to the UNDR commemorative seminar in April 1998 Lord Cooke speaks of human rights, his current judicial roles and the prospects for a common law of the world. Lord Cooke discusses the importance of human rights law in both substance and implementation. The author reports on the process of implementing constitutional law and human rights in New Zealand, Samoa, the Republic of Fiji, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong. 


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAARTEN DEN HEIJER

AbstractThis article traces the place and development of diplomatic asylum in international law in close connection with the more specific questions raised by the case of Julian Assange, who was granted asylum in the Ecuador embassy in London on 16 August 2012. After discussing the historical rise and decline of diplomatic asylum, the article reviews the current status of diplomatic asylum in international law and its implications for the triangular legal relationship between the United Kingdom, Ecuador, and Mr Assange. The article submits that, although there would not seem to be a title in general international law or human rights law for Ecuador to grant asylum to Assange, there is no obvious legal route for the United Kingdom to terminate the asylum. The fate of Assange resembles that of a long series of historical precedents where diplomatic asylum resulted in protracted stays. Although this may seem an unsatisfactory result from the perspective of international law, the uneasy balance between territorial sovereignty and diplomatic inviolability also engenders incentives to avoid disputes or to resolve them through diplomatic channels.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document