Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint

This article offers a new interpretation – the ‘constitutional constraint’ model – of the duty the Human Rights Act imposes on the courts to give horizontal effect to European Convention rights through the common law. The model requires courts to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention, but only where compatibility can be achieved by incremental development. We argue that models requiring more than incremental development are unsustainable; that deep constitutional norms compel the constraint of incrementalism, which is preserved under the HRA; and that by virtue of section 2 of the HRA, Convention rights function as principles rather than hard‐edged rights in this context. This further undermines the idea that the courts must strictly apply Convention rights and cannot allow them to be overridden by non‐Convention factors. The final section explores the nature of incrementalism in this context and the impact of the model on the doctrine of judicial precedent.     

Implications of the Human Rights Act (1998) for schools

The Human Rights Act 1998 finally came into operation on 2 October 2000 for all jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into the UKs domestic laws, means that it will be unlawful for public authorities, which includes the DfEE and LEAs, to act in a way which is incompatible with the fundamental human rights set out in the Convention (found in Schedule 1 to the HRA). Bodies such as schools and their governing bodies, whose functions are of a public nature, are also covered by the legislation. The articles of the Act which have a particular relevance for schools and education are identified. It is probable that pupils and their legal advisers will invoke the Act in disputes over a wide range of educational issues, for example, bullying, exclusions and suspensions. Some of these issues are examined and where possible existing European human rights case law is cited. It is likely that the HRA will create interesting legal challenges involving schools and education, some of which cannot be anticipated at the moment, and that the Act will cause changes to education laws and schools regulatory procedures .     

Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the Human Rights Act

This article examines the development of a remedy for unauthorised publication of personal information that has resulted from the fusion of breach of confidence with the limited 'horizontal' application of Article 8 of the ECHR via the Human Rights Act. Its analysis of Strasbourg and domestic post-HRA case law reveals the extent to which confidence has in some areas been radically transformed into a privacy right in all but name; however it also seeks to expose the analytical and normative tensions that arise in the judgments between the values of confidentiality and privacy as overlapping but not coterminous concepts, due in part to the failure to resolve decisively the horizontal effect conundrum. This judicial ambivalence towards the reception of privacy as a legal right into English law may, it will argue, also be seen in the prevailing judicial approach to the resolution of the conflict between privacy and expression interests which, it will suggest, is both normatively and structurally inadequate.     

The Council of Europe Data Protection Convention reform: Analysis of the new text and critical comment on its global ambition

The year 2010 set an important milestone in the development of data protection law in Europe: both Europe's basic regulatory texts, the EU Data Protection Directive and the Council's Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108), were placed at an amendment process, having served individual data protection for many years and witnessed in the meantime technological developments that threatened to make their provisions obsolete. After briefly presenting Convention 108, the analysis that follows will highlight the Council's data protection system currently in effect as well as developments relating to the Convention's amendment so far with the aim of identifying improvements and shortcomings. While doing this two separate points of view shall be adopted: at first a micro point of view will attempt to identify improvements and shortcomings through an ‘insider’ perspective, that is, judging only the merits and difficulties of the draft text at hand. Afterwards a macroscopic view will be adopted, whereby strategic issues will be discussed pertaining to the important issue of the relationship of the suggested draft with the EU data protection system, as well as, the same draft's potential to constitute the next global information privacy standard.     

Human Rights,Privacy and the Public Interest—Who Draws the Line and Where?

This lecture examines the protection of privacy in the United Kingdom (both at common law and after the incorporation of Human Rights Convention rights) as well as in other European countries and in the European Court of Human Rights. It considers the significance and extent of the margin of appreciation which that Court allows to individual states in respect of the protection of privacy and the balancing of privacy against other interests such as press freedom. It concludes that the margin allowed by the Strasbourg court may not be very large, that the balancing of interests apparently required by that Court is often delicate and difficult, that informal mechanisms of redress such as the Press Complaints Commissions have some benefits, but that further case-law development appears inevitably to be required if any certainty is to be achieved in at least some common situations.     

Smart meters and the information panopticon: beyond the rhetoric of compliance

The Smart Meter Implementation Programme is the Government's flagship energy policy. In its search for solutions to address privacy dilemmas raised by smart meters, the Government has been content with using data protection principles as a policy framework to regulate the processing of consumers' personal information. This is worrying since the question of who has access to what type of information and how it is used cannot simply be regarded as raising information security, authenticity and integrity issues. If we are to go beyond the rhetoric of protecting the privacy rights of energy consumers we must scrutinise the context in which legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of privacy subsist. To remedy this apparent policy oversight, the paper undertakes two tasks: first, to clarify the content and application of data protection and privacy rights to smart meters; and second, it outlines a policy framework that will address the lack of specificity on how best innovation and privacy issues can be better calibrated. More importantly, it calls for targeted substantive reforms, development of accessible privacy policies and information management practices that promote transparency and accountability and deployment of technological solutions that will help reduce emerging fault lines between innovation and privacy in this sphere of energy policymaking.     

Strasbourg,the House of Lords or Elected Politicians: Who decides about rights after Re P?

In Re P , the House of Lords decided that art 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which prohibited unmarried couples from being eligible to adopt, violated articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Apart from its significance for adoption law and anti-discrimination law, Re P is also important in understanding the constitutional role of the courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Re P recognizes that if Strasbourg has determined that an issue falls within states' margin of appreciation, this does not prevent municipal courts from enforcing those rights. This comment will discuss the meaning and scope of the courts' obligation under section 2 of the HRA, the status of the rights protected by the HRA and the appropriate role of the courts in a rights dispute which is subject to moral, social, religious or political controversy.     

The changing face of protection for individual privacy against the press: Leveson,the Royal Charter and tort liability

This article evaluates two significant methods of protecting private information in the UK – via actions under the tort of misuse of private information, and via press regulation. As the Leveson Report has recently found, parts of the press have systematically abused their power, in terms of acquiring and publishing personal information non-consensually. Thus, as the Report found, it appears that the system of press self-regulation has been shown to be ineffective. The article considers the Leveson proposals for an improved system of press regulation and the current proposal of a Royal Charter. It suggests that, ideally, press regulation could work alongside the tort, tending to encourage press restraint, obviate the need for court action, and providing a remedy for those not willing or able, due to lack of resources, to go to court to seek a remedy for privacy invasion. The history of press self-regulation indicates that those results may not be achieved, but it will be argued that the current response to the Leveson Report in the form of a Royal Charter suggests otherwise.     

Options towards a global standard for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data

PurposeStates have adopted a number of international instrument dedicated in full or in part to privacy and data protection, at multilateral or regional levels, in binding or non-binding form. This article discusses the potential and context of the emergence of a possible global standard on data protection focusing on the 1981 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, as amended (Convention 108+).AimsWith due regard being paid to the dynamic technological and business environment that surrounds policy-making in the field of personal data protection, this article attempts to look at some strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of Convention 108+ in the competition for becoming a global standard. It seeks to identify possible future directions and priorities, taking into account the evolving nature of international relations in a more multipolar world where multilateralism is less obviously the preferred approach to international issues.FindingsInformed by an in-depth study of relevant international instruments relating to the right to privacy this article explores several strengths and opportunities that may be built on to promote a global role for Convention 108+, but also some weaknesses and threats. In sum, it concludes that the Convention is relatively well placed to ambition becoming a global standard.     

Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act

Under the Human Rights Act so far there has been until very recently little judicial or even academic recognition of the difference between resolving clashes of Convention rights and addressing conflicts between utilitarian concerns and such rights. This article has chosen to illustrate that failure of recognition and to consider methods of resolving the conflict between rights, by concentrating on one particular clash of rights – that between media free speech under Article 10 and the privacy of children under Article 8. It argues for presumptive equality for the two rights and for conducting a 'parallel analysis' of their application to the circumstances of a particular case. It contends that therefore the principle that the child's welfare is paramount must be abandoned in its present form, as must the presumptive priority accorded to Article 10 where that principle is not found to apply.     

Field Theory,Cultural Capital,and the First Amendment: Two Paradoxes in the Legitimation of News

Does law influence the legitimation of news? I examine legitimations offered during ethics debates about news stories in which private people are thrust into the media spotlight. When navigating the space between what can be published lawfully and what should be published, journalism organizations offer legitimations that vary in ways that reflect the hierarchy of legal frameworks for decision. According to field theory, the cultural capital of the juridical field is constitutive of status hierarchies in the journalism field, even though the First Amendment leaves journalism to structure itself. This structuring leads to two paradoxes. First, in the performance of negative legitimation, news organizations justify ethics violations by converting the minimum standard of lawful speech into claimsmaking about laudable speech. Second, in acts of displacing legitimation, reporters suggest that more publicity is the remedy for invading privacy, translating the valorization of speech rights over privacy rights into a puzzling norm.     

Convention Compliance, Public Safety, and the Social Inclusion of Mentally Disordered People

The first part of this paper considers the impact of the HRA 1998 in the courts, and the application of Articles 3, 5, and 8 in relation to psychiatric detention, treatment without consent, and seclusion. The second part looks at its effect on the discourse of law reform. Here a key theme is the way Convention compliance has been used by the government to justify measures that will lead to a broadening of the scope of compulsory powers and a reduction in psychiatric service users' rights.     

User control of personal information concerning mobile-app: Notice and consent?

This paper discusses the practical value of the traditional privacy protection measure “notice and consent” in the mobile context. It analyses the weakness of this approach in the mobile context through a user survey and subsequent analysis. This paper will demonstrate, in the context of mobile commerce, the simple ‘notice and consent’ measure may not be a very useful measure to enhance control; moreover, shifting the burden of privacy protection to data subjects' self-control may not be sufficient for meaningful privacy protection in the era of Big Data. Given this reality, some new solutions, such as providing meaningful alternatives, use of more effective privacy protection software, and better design of warnings and nudges are suggested.     

A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and its Implications for Privacy Law

This article draws upon social interaction theory (the work of Irwin Altman) to develop a theory of the right to privacy, which reflects the way that privacy is experienced. This theory states that the right to privacy is a right to respect for barriers, and that an invasion of privacy occurs when a privacy barrier is penetrated. The first part of the paper establishes the position of the author's theory in the existing scholarship. The second part of the paper expands upon the theory to explain the nature of privacy barriers and the way that the author's theory manages a number of specific privacy issues, including threats to privacy, attempted invasions of privacy, unforeseeable interferences with privacy and waiving the right to privacy. The final part of the paper demonstrates the impact that this approach to privacy could have upon judicial reasoning, in particular Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.     

How far can Convention 108+ ‘globalise’? Prospects for Asian accessions

The ‘globalisation’ of Council of Europe data protection Convention 108 through non-European accessions has continued steadily, with eight such accessions since the first in 2013. The ‘modernisation’ of the Convention was completed on 10 October 2018 when the amending protocol for the new ‘Convention 108+’ became open for signature. Any new countries from outside Europe wishing to accede will have to accede to both Convention 108 and the amending Protocol (ie to 108+). The standards required of the laws of acceding countries by 108+ are higher than those required by 108, and are arguably mid-way between 108 and those of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).This article examines to what extent each of the 26 ‘countries’ (separate jurisdictions) in Asia are likely to be able to accede to 108+, if they wish to. As yet, none have acceded to 108. It proposes an efficient way to consider such a question across such a complex set of jurisdictions. Fifteen of the 26 Asian countries already have data privacy laws, and two others have official Bills for such laws. An assessment of the prospects for accession can be done by considering in order the following grounds which may be impediments to accession: Jurisdictions which are not States; States which are not democratic; Laws of inadequate scope; Laws lacking an independent data protection authority; Laws with substantive provisions falling short of 108+ ‘accession standards’; States with proposed Bills only; and States with no relevant laws or proposed Bills.The most difficult step in this procedure is in deciding which of the substantive provisions of 108+ constitute its ‘accession standards’, or elements essential for accession to be invited. Neither the Convention, nor the guidelines issued by its Consultative Committee, shed much light on this question. However, previous practice under Convention 108, show there is some flexibility involved.The article concludes with suggestions as to how such flexibility can be made more transparent, and observations on which Asian countries, in light of the seven step assessment carried out in the article, are the most likely candidates to be able to accede to 108+, in both the short and medium terms.     

The future of claims to resist removal by non-nationals suffering from HIV/AIDS

The focus of this article is to consider the difficulties facing non-nationals suffering HIV/AIDS to resist removal to their countries of origin where there is no or inadequate medical treatment. The link between HIV/AIDS and migration will be explored illustrating the vulnerability of displaced people to the virus. The current UK legal position for those attempting to resist removal in such circumstances will be explored. The article will explore two potential avenues that may prevent removal of non-nationals with HIV/AIDS to countries with limited access to the necessary treatment. In the first instance consideration of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will be made with particular emphasis on mother and child claims. The second argument will examine the potential for refugee claims under Article 1A (2) Refugee Convention 1951 where an applicant may be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because of membership to a particular social group. The authors will particularly emphasise the argument that in certain countries sufferers will experience ostracism and victimisation where its severity may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and persecution under the Refugee Convention. Vanessa Bettinson and Dr Alwyn Jones, senior lecturers, De Montfort University. The authors would like to thank Professor Tony Barnett at London School of Economics for his useful and invaluable thoughts and comments. We would also like to thank our colleague Gavin Dingwall and the students in our 2006/07 Immigration and Refugee Law seminars for their very helpful feedback.     

论联合国豁免的放弃

联合国组织在一定条件下放弃豁免,是《联合国特权与豁免公约》及有关国际法律文件明确规定的一项国际法律制度,这项制度美系到相美国际组织能否享有豁免以便履行职能和实现目的。同时也关系到与国际组织有关的其他各方,尤其是与国际组织交往的私人在国际组织一旦侵犯其权利的情况下能否得到救济。因此,国际组织放弃豁免是一项非常重要的国际法律制度。联合国豁免的放弃必须由其有权机关作出相应的意思表示。不论是民事行为,还是刑事行为,其豁免都是可以放弃的。联合国等国际组织放弃豁免的权利。同时也构成其必须履行的一项义务。     

Police observation and the 1990 schengen convention

Conclusion In spite of the different conditions, all of the five countries which originally signed the Schengen Convention seem to allow and use observation as a method of criminal inquiry, at least to a certain extent. However, the only country in which practically every type of observation is based on statutory provisions is Germany. The interpretation that the Constitutional Court has given to the privacy and the freedom of the individual has led to the situation that Germany now has an extremely detailed and vast system of legislation on breaches of privacy by the state in general and on observation in particular. One could therefore think that the reason for the existence of this German legislation is a typically German one. But is this really true?The creation of an explicit legislation on police observation powers would also bring more clarity into the undefined terminology used in the Schengen Convention and clarify the legal position and situation in which observing police officers might find themselves (in their own country as well as abroad). Furthermore, it would go some way to controlling the activities of the police in the highly sensitive field between the common interest of criminal investigation and the individual interest of privacy. It leads one to seriously wonder if the use of intensive observation techniques by the police without a statutory basis is in accordance with the right to privacy as guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ...This article is based on a contribution to the 11th International Congress on Criminology, held August 22–27, 1993 in Budapest (Hungary). It was written with financial support of the Legal Research Foundation, which is part of the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO), and of the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs. The author would like to thank Chantal Joubert, especially for providing him with information on Luxembourg and France, Prof. dr. Jan Naeyé for his commentary on a previous version of the article and Frank Klaassen for his very special contribution to the presentation in Budapest.     

Academic judgement,the university Visitor and the Human Rights Act 1998

Students have proved increasingly willing to challenge academic judgements in court, and the passage into law of the Human Rights Act 1998 is likely to have a major bearing on future challenges. The Act will make it unlawful for a public authority (including both a university and the courts) to act in a way which is incompatible with many of the provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights (and the Protocols attaching thereto). It will also permit a victim of such unlawfulness to bring proceedings in an appropriate court or tribunal, whether in the High Court as part of an application for judicial review or as an ordinary civil action for negligence or breach of contract. The court will have the power to grant whatever remedy it considers to be just and equitable, including an award of damages where it feels such an award to be appropriate. This could have significant consequences for the use of the Visitor in chartered universities as the final arbiter in disputes over academic judgements. For the Visitor does not conduct hearings in public and often fails to follow any recognised procedure. It may even be doubted whether the Visitor can be said to be truly independent of the institution against whose decision the student is appealing. In future, therefore, universities may have to be prepared to justify any marks awarded in the public forum of the courtroom.