scholarly journals Parent Company Direct Liability for Overseas Human Rights Violations: Lessons from the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals ABORTION IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: REFLECTIONS FROM THE UK SUPREME COURT

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-494
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne ◽  
Aisling McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

AbstractOn 7 June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSCt) issued its decision on, inter alia, whether Northern Ireland's near-total abortion ban was compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This article critically assesses the UKSC's treatment of international law in this case. It argues that the UKSCt was justified in finding that Northern Ireland's ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA was a violation of Article 8, but that the majority erred in its assessment of Article 3 ECHR and of the relevance of international law more generally.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Breakthrough in Parent Company Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-748
Author(s):  
Cees van Dam
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Parent Companies ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Two English and two Dutch cases have recently clarified the (potential) liability of parent companies vis-à-vis third parties in relation to damage caused by their subsidiaries. They concern the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell, the Hague Court of Appeal in Oguru v Shell and the Hague District Court in Milieudefensie v Shell (climate change case).

STRATEGIC ADMISSIBILITY DECISIONS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis Graham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Strategic Behaviour ◽  
European Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe current relationship between UK and Strasbourg is politically fraught, which presents inevitable challenges for both jurisdictions. This article will analyse how the Strasbourg Court has responded to these challenges when dealing with applications against the UK, particularly when an application is brought following determination by the UK Supreme Court. It will be argued that there is some evidence that the Strasbourg Court has recently been using the admissibility stage as a novel site for effecting strategic behaviour, in order to moderate and influence UK–Strasbourg relations. The effect of this recent inclination, and some possible justifications for it, will then be set out.

scholarly journals REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ACTION ABROAD: THE UK SUPREME COURT IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-66
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
European Convention ◽  
English Court ◽  
English Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Tort Claims

AbstractIn January 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down landmark judgments in three cases arising out of the UK government's conduct abroad. In Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence, the Court considered whether detention in non-international armed conflicts was compatible with the right of liberty in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second case, Belhaj v Straw, involved an examination of the nature and scope of the foreign act of State doctrine, and its applicability as a defence to tort claims arising out of the alleged complicity of the UK Government in human rights abuses abroad. Finally, Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence saw the Court examining the nature and scope of the Crown act of State doctrine, and its use as a defence to tort claims alleging unlawful detention and maltreatment. All three cases raise important doctrinal issues and have significant consequences for government accountability and access to a judicial remedy. At the heart of each decision is the relationship between international law and English law, including the ways in which international norms influence the development of English law and public policy, and how different interpretations of domestic law affect how judges resolve questions of international law. These cases also see the judges grapple with the role of the English court in the UK constitutional and international legal orders.

scholarly journals UK GOVERNMENT CANNOT HIDE FROM COMPLICITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-227
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
British Government ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Peremptory Norms

IN the joined appeals of Belhaj v Straw and Rahmatullah (No 1) v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 3, the UK Supreme Court held that state immunity and the foreign act of state doctrine did not prevent claims against the British Government alleging complicity in human rights abuses and breaches of peremptory norms of international law.

12 The Supreme Court and the European Convention on Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Commission ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Proper Account

This chapter examines the engagement of the Irish Supreme Court with the European Convention on Human Rights. It reviews all of the occasions on which decisions of the Supreme Court have been reviewed by the European Commission or Court of Human Rights, cases such as Lawless, Norris, Open Door, Keegan, Heaney, Murphy, Independent News, Bosphorus Airways, McFarlane and O’Keeffe. The argument is made that, like the UK Supreme Court, Ireland’s top court has not been as committed to adopting the ECHR’s standards as it might have been and that the Court is still not adapting its own judgment-writing to take proper account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. That Court has frequently highlighted the inordinate delays which plagued the Irish Supreme Court in the 1990s. More could be done to integrate the European Court’s thinking into the way the Supreme Court goes about developing Ireland’s human rights law.

CAUSATION AND RISK IN NEGLIGENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-176
Author(s):  
Gemma Turton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Detailed Exposition ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

The UK Supreme Court noted in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police that the approach to causation in claims based on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is “looser” than in negligence. While the but-for test is generally applied in negligence, in Article 2 claims “it appears sufficient generally to establish merely that [the claimant] lost a substantial chance” of avoiding harm. The English courts have not always been comfortable with this divergence. In Re E. (A Child) Lady Hale stated that she was “troubled by the rejection of the ‘but for’ test” by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In part this discomfort seems attributable to a lack of detailed exposition as to how the approaches to causation differ in negligence and human rights law. The lack of clarity as to what the “looser” approach consists of is unsatisfactory. Although the reference to causation in Smith was a relatively minor observation in the wider decision not to develop the duty of care owed by the police in negligence to a victim of crime, we cannot appreciate whether the difference in approach is justified without first understanding what the difference actually is. In response, one aim of this paper is to draw together key decisions on causation in the ECHR to identify what the “looser” approach entails and how it differs from the approach in negligence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document