英国1998年人权法案

英国1998年人权法案@梁淑英~~     

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the individual's right to treatment

The right to demand treatment--even when life-saving--is not recognised by English common law. The courts have consistently stated that they do not have the jurisdiction to order a doctor to perform a particular treatment. This article considers whether the impending Human Rights Act 1998 can be interpreted so as to allow this right. While a general right to treatment is discussed the argument focuses on life-saving treatment. As an illustration, the David Glass case will be analysed and the impact of the Human Rights Act will be examined by considering how the judgment might have differed had the Act been in force.     

A Tort-Based Approach to Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998

This article argues that a strong case can be made for departing from the current approach to damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, and for the adoption of an alternative tort-based approach. The article critically analyses the English courts' arguments against adopting a tort-based approach and demonstrates that neither the Act nor the European Convention on Human Rights militate against such approach. It makes a positive case for a tort-based approach, arguing that the law of damages in tort provides an appropriate model for damages under the Act as a matter of principle given the common functions and protected interests that underpin both areas of the law. Further, tort law offers an established and elaborate corpus of principles to draw on, which can readily and naturally be read across to the human rights context. A tort-based approach would also promote consistency across English law, while generally affording greater protection to human rights than the English courts' current approach.     

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 .     

1998年《人权法案》及其对英国宪法的影响

人权是一个必然的、永恒的、但却是历史的概念 ;换言之 ,是一个永远随着人类社会进步而发展的认识理性。中国人在追寻宣扬人权的同时 ,西方人也在做着类似的努力。李树忠之文至少可以给我们提供以下几方面的思考与启示 :第一 ,英国的“宪法性”规则同样是其法治实践的结果 ,且长久地存在和体现于法治实践中 ,在此情况下 ,英国人是如何实现了人权保护呢 ?其政治条件和法治机制是如何对此发生作用呢 ?第二 ,1 998年《人权法案》进入英国法治实践 ,在何种程度上发生了影响 ?它对英国的政治体制和法治机制能够带来什么样的变化 ?第三 ,《人权法案》的精神与权利宣示究竟有什么样的实质性效力 ,它与国内的公共权力、司法操作以及人权文化会发生何种联系 ?所有这些均可从此文中获取一、二信息与观点的传达。英国宪制之独特及其走入世界大流之状况 ,亦可由此知之点滴而激发自察 ,是故以首篇荐之读者     

The Human Rights Act 1998: research,freedom of speech and academic freedom

This article will consider rights to receive and express information and ideas from the perspective of the researcher, the researched, the researcher's institution and the wider community. It will also consider how the courts will resolve the inevitable conflicts between these rights. It does not address the right to education enshrined in Article 2 of the First Protocol² but rather the other Convention Articles, particularly Article 10, particularly relevant to the conduct of intellectual inquiry. It is intended to underline the potential reach of the Act for all public bodies which seek to be learning organisations, and the consequent need for such bodies to review their practices and procedures before the Act comes into force on 2 October 2000.     

The Role of Parliamentary Intention in Adjudication under the Human Rights Act 1998

This essay gives more detailed content to the widespread viewthat the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has changed the traditionalrole of parliamentary intention in statutory interpretation.It begins by outlining the various ways in which legislativeintent has featured in traditional (pre-HRA) statutory interpretation.This is followed by an examination of the interpretive principlesdeveloped by the senior judiciary under the HRA case-law, focusingon the extent to which they seem to depart from traditionalprinciples. It is argued that although the traditional roleof parliamentary intention is partly preserved post-HRA, theinterpretive obligation under s 3(1) HRA nonetheless shiftsthe interpretive focus away from what Parliament originallyintended in enacting the legislation under HRA scrutiny, towardsfulfilling the overriding goal of achieving compatibility withConvention rights. The final sections of the essay attempt toprovide an account of what is involved in this shift.     

Some implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the medical treatment of children

Although the Gillick decision was hailed as an important step in the furtherance of respect for children's autonomy, subsequent judgments seemed to undermine this important principle. While it would be difficult to criticise the outcomes of some of the key cases, the reasoning by which these were achieved is rather more contentious. There have been some interesting discussions suggesting more constructive approaches but there is still a great deal of anecdotal evidence indicating that conservative assessments of children's ability to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment remain the norm. The new Department of Health consent forms should help to create a climate where assessment of a child's competence will become more sophisticated. This paper will argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 offers another opportunity to reassess more traditional approaches to children's capacity; indeed, this could be violation, inter alia, of the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 in extreme circumstances and the right to private and family life enshrined in Article 8. Clearly, it is not always practicable to carry out assessments rigorously and some health professionals may feel they do not have the expertise to do this, but some basic criteria could assist here; courts are not likely to expect more than a demonstration that best endeavors have been employed in reasoned decision-making. Additionally, other privacy rights may have implications for the medical decision-making process as it affects children and their carers particularly where conflict arises. Disputes may also ensue from the right to manifest religion and other beliefs",' under the Act. This paper will explore how such challenges to those responsible for the medical treatment of children may fare.     

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.     

11 September 2001, Counter-terrorism, and the Human Rights Act

The attacks of 11 September 2001 and the reaction to them has been the gravest challenge to date to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has expanded the remit of the Terrorism Act 2000 and there has been a new concentration on antiterrorism by government. This article assesses the impact of human rights law on the debate about liberty and security following 11 September. It considers how the provisions of the Human Rights Act have influenced the formulation and interpretation of anti-terrorism laws, and examines the role of the judiciary in adjudicating on disputes between the individual and the state. It ends with some general discussion about the security-driven challenges to human rights that lie ahead.     

The Politics of the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act is the result of post-war changes in Europe. It is the consequence less of the campaigning of dedicated individuals and more of the change in the position of the United Kingdom in Europe and the world. Objections to incorporation of the Convention have given way to the desire to be like the rest of Europe. Traditional views of the judicial role have given way to a perception of the judiciary as the last bastion against an over-powerful executive, unchecked by Parliament.