Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?

Recently there has been much discussion of the prospect of replacing, or supplementing, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a British bill of rights. The Government, opposition Conservative Party and others have published detailed plans and research reports. Whilst there has been some limited examination of the alleged failures of the HRA in providing effective legal protection for human rights, the debate has not been accompanied by a thorough examination of these types of problems with the HRA, free from political criticisms. Drawing on research concerning aspects of the HRA carried out over the past ten years, it is possible to identify concrete problems which have prevented the HRA from meeting the objectives originally set for it. But given the limitations of the present debate, future plans do not adequately address many of these problems making it uncertain how effective any new bill of rights will actually be.     

Ethical Issues of Bioterror

Bioterrorism has global implications, especially with regard to the use of contagious bio agents or “epidemic generators” with a high potential for causing epidemics. The grave medical implications of a bioterror attack are obvious, but some of the related ethical issues are often overlooked. Moral issues associated with the threat and with the attack may carry long-term consequences, which may shake the rudiments of democratic societies. Some of these efforts may be aided by regulations, laws, and enforcement. The best results will be achieved by a sense of responsibility and understandings of the public.     

United nations resolutions against international terrorism

Abstract

Nine years after the Munich Massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and after a request by the Secretary‐General for the General Assembly to act on the problem, the General Assembly reached a general consensus on a terrorism resolution. The resolution endorses a UN committee's recommendations to refrain from assisting terrorism in any way and to cooperate in the final elimination of terrorism. Negotiation of the resolution was difficult because third world countries did not want to weaken opposition to “colonial, racist, and alien regimes,” and they have held back from approving an international convention that would require trying or extraditing those accused of terrorist crimes. Problems of constitutional protection to individuals in democracies and of political asylum also stand in the way of an overall convention. Nevertheless, the General Assembly resolution has been useful in promoting cooperation among states to eliminate terrorism and in encouraging support for conventions against specific types of terrorism such as hijacking, taking of hostages, attacking diplomatic targets, and supporting nuclear terrorism.