Abstract: The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 provides that a judicial declaration that legislation is incompatible with rights does not affect the law’s validity and ongoing enforcement. This paper challenges the widespread view by which a judicial determination that a law violates rights, coupled with that law’s continuing operation, gives the HRA a distinctive feature. It does so by reference to the Canadian experience of rights review. Judges applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have developed a practice of delaying declarations that rights-infringing legislation is invalid, despite having the power to strike laws down immediately. In both countries, then, laws infringing rights may remain enforceable. Contrasting judicial postures of constitutional enforcement and legislative engagement emphasize the Canadian shift from immediate orders and emphasize the strength of interpretive remedies in the UK. From the complainant's view, the HRA’s declaration of incompatibility is less distinctive than UK commentators often suppose. The larger message, given the impact of judicial practice, is the need for caution in presuming how rights instruments will operate and in assessing them as “weak” or “strong.”
Publication Year: 2015
Publication Date: 2015-11-17
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot