Privatization and Welfare: A Comparative Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Donnelly

This Article adopts a comparative perspective on the use of privatization by governments in the welfare context. It begins by reviewing the extent of welfare privatization in the US, the UK, and Ireland, considering notable examples such as privatized welfare-to-work schemes and residential care. For example, the question of privatized welfare accommodation in the UK has resulted in significant litigation and a major judgment on privatization handed down by the House of Lords in 2007. The Article turns to a consideration of the challenges that arise from using privatization in the welfare context from the perspective of i) accountability and ii) human rights. The ways in which the different jurisdictions respond to the challenges of welfare privatization—and the lessons to be learned from those responses—are then assessed. Overall, it is argued that judicial or doctrinal responses to privatization are often inadequate and the extent to which there exist alternative mechanisms to ensure accountability and human rights protection in the context of welfare privatization are explored.

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Breitegger

AbstractThe European Convention of Human Rights is unlikely to be an effective remedy for local individuals alleging human rights violations by European states participating in peace support operations abroad in the future. This conclusion is substantiated by analysing the restrictive and legally flawed stance taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the joint cases of Behrami and Saramati which had not only a precedential effect on this court's own jurisprudence but also on the case of Al Jedda v. UK Secretary of Defence before the UK House of Lords. Ultimately, the decisions in these cases may be understood by the choice to let the rationale of effective functioning of peace support operations prevail over the effectiveness of human rights protection of local individuals.


Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson

This chapter examines the influence of the new Commonwealth model of human rights protection (exemplified by the UK Human Rights Act 1998) on the form of the two Australian statutory Bills of Rights, and then considers the impact of Australia's distinctive legal culture and constitutional structure on the operation of these instruments. In particular, it examines the impact of culture and structure in the decision of the High Court of Australia in R. v Momcilovic [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 280 A.L.R. As a result of that case, key features of the Australian Bills of Rights now diverge from the dominant UK approach, a divergence so striking that it may no longer be possible to identify the Australian Bills of Rights as exemplars of the new Commonwealth model.


Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 761-816
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas

This chapter examines human rights protection in the UK. It examines the reasons why the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was enacted, the effects of the HRA, the principal mechanisms through which the HRA affords protection to human rights in UK law; the scope of the HRA; and the debate concerning the potential repeal, reform, or replacement of the HRA. The chapter also introduces the notion of human rights, including the practical and philosophical cases for their legal protection, and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the HRA gives effect in UK law.


Public Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas

This chapter examines human rights protection in the UK. It examines the reasons why the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was enacted, the effects of the HRA, the principal mechanisms through which the HRA affords protection to human rights in UK law, the scope of the HRA, and the debate concerning the potential repeal, reform, or replacement of the HRA. The chapter also introduces the notion of human rights, including the practical and philosophical cases for their legal protection, and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the HRA gives effect in UK law.


2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-339
Author(s):  
Ben Chigara

This article examines emergent state practice of European States concerning foreign nationals that are merely suspected but not charged with involvement with terrorist offences, including deportation to destinations where they risk torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – usually their own country of origin, contrary to the foremost rules of international human rights law. The article attempts a rule of law analysis with a view to evaluating the difficulty posed for States by the absence still of alternative mechanisms for ensuring both the national security interest on the one hand, and on the other, the human rights interest of terrorist suspects. The article argues that sustainable counter-terrorist strategies will be distinguished and characterised by their insistence on the recognition, promotion and protection of the dignity inherent in all individuals – including terrorist suspects whether or not they have been charged with terrorist offences. This calls for the urgent development of human rights steered national security policies that prioritize the recognition, promotion, protection and reinforcement of the dignity inherent in all individuals. Such policies will have at their core, strategies for the efficient resolution of the question of how best to deal with the individuals that are ‘merely suspected by States agents' of involvement in terrorist offences, particularly foreign nationals. The article examines jurisprudence arising from cases involving among others the UK, Italy, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands and France and shows a worrying appetite by these pro-democracy States to minimize human rights protection of terrorist suspects as a means of progressing the fight against international terrorism. This approach contradicts the international paradigm of over six decades whereby the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security was premised on human rights. The article advocates the development of human rights steered policies and strategies to deal with foreign nationals suspected of involvement with international terrorism.


Legal Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-338
Author(s):  
Elise Maes

AbstractThe high prevalence of tobacco smoking in prison, and certain aspects inherent in prison culture make smoking in that environment particularly difficult to regulate. Over the last decade, the UK government has adopted and sought to implement gradually its plan to make all prisons smoke-free nationwide. The UK Supreme Court recently ruled inBlackthat the Health Act 2006, which prohibits smoking in most enclosed public spaces, does not bind the Crown and consequently does not apply to public prisons. Both developments have implications for the human rights protection of smoking and non-smoking prisoners. This paper considers how English smoking and non-smoking prisoners’ (human) rights are currently protected, and what the legal implications are of a complete ban on smoking in English prisons. The paper reflects on whether an indoor smoking ban might strike a better balance between the competing rights and interests of smoking and non-smoking prisoners than a complete ban.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanice Regina Lírio do Valle

Cooperative constitutionalism is the watchword in the 21st. century, and the creation of a judicial network is an important tool to improve human rights protection. This paper intends to contribute in that field, reporting the constitutional framework and the main decisions held by the Brazilian and the Colombian Constitutional Courts in protecting housing rights. The comparison is justified by the historical proximity in the juridical transition in both countries – 1988 in Brazil and 1991 in Colombia –; and also by the clear inspiration that Colombia took in the Brazilian Constitution at the time of their Constituent Assembly. As the narrative may show, formal constitutional clauses were not the key element to assure some level of efficacy to the housing right; Colombian results seems to be more solid and based in normative parameters, even though the literal text of the constitution does not provide housing rights with immediate efficacy.


Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-378
Author(s):  
Benedict Douglas

AbstractAre we defined by the choices we make or the duties we owe? This paper argues that there is a conflict between the fundamental conception of the individual as possessing the capacity to choose how to live, which has been held to be the foundation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the understanding of the individual as a bearer of duties which has long underpinned the UK Constitution. Through case law analysis, it is shown that the tension between these two understandings of the individual underlies the troubled acceptance of the Human Rights Act 1998, and influences the UK judiciary's substantive interpretations of the Convention rights. It is ultimately argued that for the Convention rights to be fully accepted in the UK, the evolution from a duty to a choice-based understanding of the individual, which was artificially accelerated by the Human Rights Act, must be more widely accepted by society and the courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document