scholarly journals Restrictions of Rights and Freedoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Moulin-Stozek
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. Some of them were limited during a state of emergency declared on the basis of Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and, particularly relevant for the current COVID-19 crisis, Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The review of legal documents and literature indicates that the lockdown regulations – mainly Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 – adversely affected the everyday life of British citizens. This article discusses if those restrictions could have potentially interfered with some of the fundamental rights.

Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Republic Of Ireland ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Degrading Treatment

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned whether interrogation techniques employed by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1975 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case note considers the differences between absolute, limited, and qualified rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

BREWING UP REASONS

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-230
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Domestic Law

IT is trite law that good reasons must be given to justify infringements of fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. But what reasons can one count as good reasons? In Re Brewster's Application [2017] UKSC 8; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 519, the United Kingdom Supreme Court addressed the question of how much deference courts should afford to post hoc rationalisations of decisions challenged for non-compliance with the Convention. The answer given by Lord Kerr, with whom Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed and Lord Dyson agreed, is interesting in its own terms and may have implications outside the confines of the Convention.

scholarly journals The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: going beyond declarations

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Cultural Pressures

The process of capturing and entrenching fundamental rights remains very much a live one in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In both countries there is pressure to move on from the current bill of rights legislation: the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). While the two jurisdictions are subject to quite different political and cultural pressures, there remains a great deal of scope for exchange of ideas and experiences. 

Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Degrading Treatment

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned whether interrogation techniques employed by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1975 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case note considers the differences between absolute, limited, and qualified rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2021 ◽  
pp. 363-390
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act

This chapter discusses the origins and growth of judicial review in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Judicial review in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act is best explained by borrowing from the United States, Canada, Germany, and the European Court of Human Rights. The emergence of judicial review in the United Kingdom also coincided with the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, thus creating a need for a federalism umpire. This was vividly illustrated by a recent U.K. Supreme Court separation of powers umpiring opinion; and by a 2019 umpiring ruling, which upheld Scotland’s highest court, while overturning an English and Welsh court on the justiciability and breadth of The Queen’s power to prorogue Parliament. The adoption by the United Kingdom of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as a judicially enforced Bill of Rights, was done, in part, out of embarrassment that the United Kingdom kept losing so many human rights cases when they were heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). There is, accordingly, a mild rights from wrongs story that explains the adoption of the Human Rights Act of 1998, although a desire to borrow that which was fashionable and in style provides the major explanation for the adoption of this act.

Declaration of Succession to the Geneva Conventions by the Kingdom of Tonga

1978 ◽  
Vol 18 (206) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Swiss Confederation ◽  
War Victims

In a letter which reached the President of the Swiss Confederation on 13 April 1978, the Kingdom of Tonga declared that it considered itself bound by the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, by virtue of the prior ratification of the Conventions by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document