Human Rights Act 1998 Dq

As Marcus Tullius Cicero once stated: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.” Throughout the centuries there were a considerable number of attempts to preserve individual’s rights and safety. The Human Rights Act 1998 was one of the efforts to safeguard civil liberties and introduce them to the United Kingdom legal system. Human rights act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000 and the aims of passing this act were to give a greater power for domestic courts to apply the Convention principles straight to the English legal system, additionally to give different position for convention rights, make them enforceable and bring these rights “home” to English law, thus reducing number of cases going to Strasbourg and the European

“A bill that can be repealed or amended with a majority vote in Parliament, for example, is a weaker protector than one that is removed from the day-to-day affairs of government business”. Since The Human Rights Act 1998 is not constitutionally entrenched it is just an ordinary bill which can be easily repealed by Parliament and lose its main powers to protect Individuals rights. Secondly, it is obvious and stated by various academics that judges in United Kingdom have limited powers in deciding cases under this act. This Act “allows judges simply to alert government of inconsistencies” it is clearly a weak model for protecting human rights. Human Rights Act provided a new basis for judicial interpretation but “not a basis for striking down any part of it.” Domestic courts are put in a position of a problem solver but their “hands” are bind really tight and it is hard to protect human rights since so many prohibitions are implemented. On other hand, looking to Human Rights Act from a political perspective, it is thought that this act upholds the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty and political control. Since more tools are given to the judiciary it may result in judges as law-making power. Recent governments have shown concern over the increased power

A great number of sections, especially 2, 3 and 4, draw the line between courts and Parliament while protecting civil liberties and explained how to achieve positive results. However, nowadays this act is rather often criticised as being weak mechanism for protection of human rights. In reality, domestic courts struggle to meet objectives laid out in the Human Rights act 1998 since their power is strictly limited. In addition to, Parliament is afraid to lose its sovereignty and position. All things considered, even though The Act is not constitutionally entrenched and has some drawbacks, the Act still better protects human rights than the situation before the Human Rights Act 1998 was