Security detention - United Kingdom practice

This article assesses the role of security detention within the context of a number of the United Kingdom’s anti-terrorism policies. It considers the U.K. provisions on indefinite detention and the judicial response to those policies. Close attention is given to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA 2005), and in particular the detailed regime of “control orders” it introduced. The different substantive and procedural bases for judicial challenges to control orders are illustrated by reference to the leading judicial decisions. The challenges have principally been based on the human rights provisions in the European convention on human rights. These have been given a degree of domestic incorporation by the Human Rights Act (1998). Consideration is given to the future use of control orders and how an “exit strategy" from them could be devised. Finally, the article analyses the place of security detention within the context of other policy options that form part of an Anti-Terrorism Strategy. It is submitted that none of them is cost-free in human rights terms

The \u27Incorporation\u27 of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom Law

Dominic McGoldrick is Professor of Public International Law and Director of the International and European Law Unit, Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool. He is the author of books on the Human Rights Committee (OUP) and International Relations Law of the European Union (Longmans). Among Professor McGoldrick\u27s recent works are The Permanent International Criminal Court: An End to the Culture of Impunity? (Criminal Law Review, 1999), Hate Speech Laws: Consistency with National and International Human Rights Law (Legal Studies, 1998), The European Union After Amsterdam: An Organisation with General Human Rights Competence? (in Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, 1999) and From Yugoslavia to Bosnia: Accommodating National Identity in National and International Law (International Journal on Minority and Group Rights ( 1999). He is a specialist in Human Rights Law. In 1999-2000 he will be a Fulbright Distinguished Scholar and a Human Rights Fellow at the Harvard Law School

The \u27Incorporation\u27 of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom Law

Dominic McGoldrick is Professor of Public International Law and Director of the International and European Law Unit, Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool. He is the author of books on the Human Rights Committee (OUP) and International Relations Law of the European Union (Longmans). Among Professor McGoldrick\u27s recent works are The Permanent International Criminal Court: An End to the Culture of Impunity? (Criminal Law Review, 1999), Hate Speech Laws: Consistency with National and International Human Rights Law (Legal Studies, 1998), The European Union After Amsterdam: An Organisation with General Human Rights Competence? (in Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, 1999) and From Yugoslavia to Bosnia: Accommodating National Identity in National and International Law (International Journal on Minority and Group Rights ( 1999). He is a specialist in Human Rights Law. In 1999-2000 he will be a Fulbright Distinguished Scholar and a Human Rights Fellow at the Harvard Law School

Affording states a margin of appreciation: comparing the European Court of Human rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

We live in an era of proliferating international legal domains and institutions, not least in the human rights field. For some, normative pluralism within human rights is inevitable, and even desirable. Others view it as a threat to the integrity and coherence of international human rights protection. How far do human rights standards and their interpretation by different regional and international human rights systems diverge? To what extent do human rights bodies ‘borrow’ from or influence each other in respect of their case law, practices and procedures? Is global human rights protection fragmenting or heading towards greater coherence? This edited collection addresses these questions through the insights of leading scholars and jurists with first-hand experience of human rights adjudication and litigation

The development and status of sexual orientation discrimination under international human rights law

This article assesses the development, status and recognition of a prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination as a matter of international human rights law. The State practice examined appears to reveal fundamental divisions on this issue. The article considers whether there are any treaty-based obligations that support the prohibition on sexual orientation as an existing right. Having examined the national, regional and international human rights jurisprudence on sexual orientation discrimination, the article considers the possible ways forward in policy terms, given the continued opposition from a significant body of States. More specifically, it discusses the most appropriate legal and strategic responses at national, regional and international levels to manage or bridge the divisions between States on the issue

Sharia Law in Europe? Legacies of the Ottoman Empire and the European Convention on Human Rights

In Western Thrace in Greece, a legacy of the Ottoman Empire survives in the form of religious law (Sharia). This article examines how international human rights law has approached the compatibility of such religious laws with modern human rights instruments and particularly with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It portrays the situation on Western Thrace within the wider historical, legal and social contexts of Muslims in Greece. It explains how the ‘Muslims in Western Thrace’ came to be identified as a particular legal minority, why Sharia continued to be applied to them and only to them, and examines their contemporary legal and human rights status. There follows an extensive critique of the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Molla Sali v. Greece in December 2018. Although the narrow factual issue in the case concerned inheritance rights, the case raised general issues concerning the individual as the central subject of human rights law and the relationship between individual and minority rights protection. The article concludes by reflecting on the place of individual consent within a human rights framework and the systemic implications of the Molla Sali case with respect to the possible future of Sharia in the social and legal spaces of the ECHR