Do Human Rights Treaties Matter?: Judicial Responses to the Detention of Asylum Seekers in the United States and the United Kingdom

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Meili
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Treaties

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

scholarly journals Foreign experience of administrative and legal support of citizens' rights by prosecutor's offices and possibilities of its use in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (27) ◽  
pp. 544-551
Author(s):  
Svitlana Viktorivna Yevdokimenko ◽  
Anna Oleksandrivna Naumova ◽  
SvitlanaOleksiivna Yakymchuk ◽  
Vladyslav Volodymyrovych Povydysh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Level Of Training

The purpose of the article is to substantiate, on the basis of the analysis of the legislation of France, Italy, Germany, Great Britain and the USA, the ways of improving the legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of ensuring the rights of citizens by the prosecuting authorities. During the writing of the article, such methods as comparative-legal, system-structural, logical-normative were used. The relevance of the article is due to the fact that the optimization of the activity of the prosecution bodies is impossible without taking into account foreign experience. This issue is of particular importance in the field of ensuring human rights and freedoms by the prosecuting authorities. Concidering that fact, the legislation of France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States has been analyzed, which made it possible to formulate certain ways of improving national legislation on the protection of citizens' rights by prosecuting authorities. It has been justified to improve the administrative status of the prosecution bodies, to review its functions, the requirements for the level of training and to legislate a clear mechanism for the implementation of functions. According to the results of the study, the authors have identified possible ways of using the positive foreign experience of administrative and legal support of citizens' rights by prosecuting authorities.

scholarly journals Expanded Liability for Psychiatrists: Tarasoff Gone Crazy?

2014 ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Michael Thomas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Conservative Approach ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Treatment

<p>This paper is intended to serve as an update for psychiatrists on notable developments of the<em> Tarasoff</em> doctrine in the United States and United Kingdom. Most clinicians will be familiar with the basic <em>Tarasoff</em> doctrine. However, the author suspects that many clinicians will be troubled to learn the extent to which <em>Tarasoff</em> liability has extended in some jurisdictions.</p><p>Accordingly, the first part of this paper addresses notable judicial treatment of <em>Tarasoff</em> in several state jurisdictions within the United States. The second part discusses the more conservative approach of the United Kingdom, which affords clinicians discretion to warn potential victims in certain circumstances. The United Kingdom has struggled with, and so far rejected, the imposition of a <em>Tarasoff</em>-duty. However, a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights opens the door for something comparable to <em>Tarasoff</em> in the United Kingdom. The final part offers a critique of the<em> Tarasoff</em> doctrine and suggests that other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, may be wise to avoid this problematic doctrine.</p>

Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-495
Author(s):  
John T. Parry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentences

In Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) upheld the extradition of several suspected terrorists to the United States, despite the possibility that if convicted, the suspects could face life sentences and imprisonment or both, in a “supermax” prison. This decision marks another important step in the development of the Court’s Article 3 extradition jurisprudence. It also illustrates the uneasy tension between that jurisprudence and the efforts of European states to cooperate with U.S. anti-terror initiatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document