Implementation of European Court of Human Rights Judgments
1. “States are primarily responsible for enforcing the Convention in their jurisdiction, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. In addition, the Court and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have the ability to influence the process to ensure better execution”.
2. With Hirst v UK (No2) the State has failed in its duty to act responsibly and honour its obligations under the Convention.
3. This failure by the 3 arms of Government indicates a systemic structural problem.
4. It gives another meaning to Broken Britain. The Separation of Powers between the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary is effectively fettered by the fusion of powers. The checks and balances do not work.
5. The UK appears to adopt The King’s New Clothes propaganda line. A suggested counter to this could be for Human Rights Defenders to be active in presenting a view which shows that The King is in the Altogether! Exposing the untruthfulness of Government.
6. A compare and contrast study will highlight the gap between what the UK states to be the case, and what the case is in reality.
7. The individual and NGOs should be able to influence reforms.
8. Without losing sight of the need to clear up our own backyard, it has to be said that there is also a need for reform of the Convention, Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers and Court.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment