I'm looking forward to your opinion - as lawyers, as citisens of Russia, as people of the world!!!
Leave your comments on the following:A great day for British justice: Theresa May vows to take UK out of the European Court of Human Rights
The historic move, to be announced soon by Home Secretary Theresa May, would mean foreign courts could no longer meddle in British justice.
Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287183/A-great-day-British-justice-Theresa-May-vows-UK-European-Court-Human-Rights.html
MailOnline
You're welcome!
ОтветитьУдалить1. As a lawyer I cannot come to the unambiguous conclusion. Assuming the UK will be able to withdraw the ECHR, on the one hand, there will be no other possibility to protect human rights other than the Supreme Court. This means that British people won’t be able to overturn the decision of this court, or somehow otherwise held the UK government liable for its unlawful actions. The withdrawal from the Convention will definitely weaken the protection of Human Rights.
ОтветитьУдалитьOn the other hand, the UK is an independent country, which supports the doctrine of the sovereignty and has a right to decline the effect of the ECHR on its territory as any other state (Art. 58 of the ECHR).
Furthermore, the refusal from the Convention seems to be technically and practically unfeasible, because it has already become the part of the British law system. This is also supported by the failure of the panel set up to investigate the possibility of a British Bill of Rights. It did not even discuss whether Britain should pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In theory, the Council of Europe could retaliate against Mrs May by expelling Britain. But this has not happened to other countries found guilty of flouting human rights laws in the past.
2. A russian citizen in me reacts to this article as to the future opportunity to bring all the criminals who found asylum in the UK before justice. However, it’s likely that Mrs May’s suggestions are used only for the political campaign and they will not come into life.
3. Moreover, by deporting criminals to the countries, where the possibility to put them to the torture is obvious, the UK will breach the essential human rights to life and protection from torture. If the UK bans the right to vote for prisoners, this also might be assessed as a violation of the basic principles of democracy and equality.
Secondly, other states, following the example of the UK, might reject the authority of the Court of Human Rights over their citizens.
Consequently, these arguments may be considered disapprovingly and suspiciously by the other people of the world.
1. As a lawyer, I believe there is nothing more important than to prevent human rights violations. At the same time, the UK has always been well-known for the fierce protection of its sovereignty. Indeed, sovereignty is the consequence of statehood, however, what Mrs May fails to understand is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should not be considered as the limitation of sovereignty per se but rather as the respectful body ensuring that there is no abuse of human rights in the UK. Otherwise, British judges will be able to interpret the law as they see fit while that surely cannnot be regarded as the rule of law in the democratic society which the UK considers itself to be the part of.
ОтветитьУдалитьIt seems Mrs May is more conserned about deportation issues than other provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Also, Anastasiya mentioned the possibility to deport criminals to their respective contries. Here is where I disagree, even if the UK succeeds to withdraw from the ECHR , it is still a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, Article 3 of which prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture". Furthermore, the principle of "refoulement" was officially enshrined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that was also signed and ratified by the UK. Therefore, the deportations justification for withdrawal from the ECHR is clearly not working, UK will be unable to deport people falling in the category of refugees anyway.
2. As either the citizen of Russia or person of the world, I may understand why the UK wants to protect its public order. However, what Nastya did not cover in her second point is that there is still the possibility of innocent people to be found guilty in British courts. No further judicial review by the independet judicial authority (the ECtHR in this respect) will only lead to more human rights abuse by British national public authorities.
Nastya made many comments that agree with my arguments. Yet we may argue on her second submission. Alena provided engaging analysis of international public law related to the issue.
ОтветитьУдалитьTheresa May made a show for a Daily Mail audience. They appreciated this. Hardly anyone else did. Such an absurd move would deform UK's reputation on the world arena.
1. Lawyers are flabbergasted. All EU members shall accede to the Convention. Further, Lisbon Treaty requires accession of EU as a legal entity to the Convention. But unlike lawyers, Daily Mail audience rejoice at the prospect of leaving EU.
Today English judges integrated a large web of human rights principles form Convention to the English law. It is impossible to remove them by repealing the HRA or leaving the Council of Europe.
And lawyers don't like the way Theresa May deformed the truth in her examples of malign ECHR decisions.
2. Russia may like the example of UK. Follow it, and our country's reputation would be ruined.
3. ECHR has not defeated injustice, but it restored faith in justice for many victims. If UK turns its back on ECHR, other countries may follow this creepy path. Additionally, this move would damage what is left of EU's stability. Destroying unique organisations - Council of Europe and EU - would be a leap back. Citizen of the world looks ahead. Yet Theresa May gazes back.
My first reaction when I finished reading was: "Australia!". Theresa May has surely a longing for the 18th century.
ОтветитьУдалитьLets see what did my collegues say: what has touched me in her words - "as to the future opportunity to bring all the criminals who found asylum in the UK before justice". I see it another way, not as an exit from the safe tonnel to the blinding light of jusctice, but as an increasing of refugees to the neighbour countries. There is no actual binding for the exciled criminals to quit their countries to somewhere else. May be Russia? Who cares.
Though I may almost sign under the each of Alena's word, I need also to add that ECHR is a bludgeon-body which was ,ade to protect the whole Europe from the bigger bludgeon, may be with bombs inside.
I really loved Roman's vocabulary, although it was not actually as legal as Alena's. However I did not quite understand the poit number 2. When and why should be follow this potencial example?
1. As a lawyer I want to say that Mrs May has the idea of the MASS MEDIA catastrophes or at least the easy earthquakes. But she has no concept of how strong are the strings of the ECHR's law web.
Human rights belong to an individual as a consequence of being human. They refer to a wide range of values that are universal for all human beings, and with the Convention or without it, the UK will have to admit it. And join any other international agreements. The UK would make more problem to herself than to the others.
International concern for human rights has been evident outside of the United Nations. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which met in Helsinki in 1973-75, produced the Helsinki Final Act. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which first met in 1950, produced the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Social Charter. There are also a number of private groups involved in human-rights advocacy. One of the best-known international human rights agencies is Amnesty International (founded in 1961). The UK has a risk to top up the minority group of countries whose rights may be even violeted because of their disunity with the EC. Let's be honest the ECHR is not an innocent lamb,nevertheless it can have a part of a break against all the rapid speeds of the very "English" identity.
I do not agree with giving the criminals right to vote, espessialy if we are talking about rippers, rapers or murders. However, we shall not forget about social programmes in Britain which are quite strong and which the Government has an experience to do.
2. As a Russian citizen I can see here a potential problem. If the UK accepts this project, it may not stop then, the next step will be a tightening mode for visas, after fot getting the citizenship and so on and so forth.
Secondly, I have already mentioned it, if not the UK, then where would the criminals go? Do not take me wrong, I do not want to make a criminal trash from British lands, I want to underline the danger of the immigrants' wave increase, they will run not only from their motherland but also from their first asulym.
3. As people of the world...Remember, I cried "Australia"?
Here we go. The British Empire was big enough to send their prisoners as far away as possible. Out of sight out of mind.
The UK is not so big and it has to use the other countries as a trash can. Can we agree with that? No way.
They have to find another way of solving the problem, besides almost every country has it, but noone wants to send people back to the possible death.
Тнis is not me))) I'm publishing what Alla sent me and what she coldn't publish herself.
ОтветитьУдалитьI'm very sorry to inform you, but I no longer have an opportunity to access your blog, that's why I send my comments here, I saw comments of Nastya and Alena and, unfortunately, now i have no idea whether there are any others..
1) As a lawyer I was really disappointed reading this article on many grounds, firstly, because it is very one-sided.
The main battle here is between the UK sovereignty and internationally recognized human rights, however, as it was rightly pointed out by Alena, it is very doubtful that the UK lost or renounced its sovereignty by signing this Convention.
According to this article, ECtHR is almost the worst body for the UK, however I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that UK's judicial system is far from ideal and that the decisions of the ECtHR as a supranational organisation provides a good mechanism for the protection of human rights, when UK's courts fail to do that.
As a further concern, leaving the ECHR is not as simple as it is presented in this article, the withdrawal may lead to unbearable complications for further interactions with the EU. For instance, the Maastricht treaty explicitly cited the ECHR as "general principles of community law" (Maastricht 6(2)).
Moreover, I was not convinced by the provision of British polls, hardly ever so many people would like to withdraw the HRA; this reminded me of Mark Twain's quotation: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, big lies and statistics»
Finally, turning to the issue of «refoulment», Mrs May and others completely forgot about UK's obligations under international law, without mentioning the Refugee Convention, I would like to refer you to the articles of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the UK is a party, therefore, even if the UK withdraws from ECHR, these refugees who committed crimes may still continue to live on the territory of the UK due to a number of international law instruments.
Summing up, this article is a good example of a political propaganda which has little to do with law.
2) As a Russian citizen I do believe that the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR would affect Russian position about this Convention, since there is a lot opinions of highly-qualified publicists, including the head of our Constitutional Court (Zor'kin), that the ECtHR abuses their powers and that it cannot dictate anything to the Russian judicial system. In case of UK’s withdrawal, Russia would again start pushing this position and may use the UK as a good example.
3) As a person of the world, I do agree with girls and would like to add, that what is really important is to ensure the human rights by all possible means and the more independent instances and options you have the better.