Human Rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 can only be used to enforce rights between a victim (as defined in
section 7) and a public authority (as defined in section 6). This means that in most cases rights can
only be enforced in a “vertical relationship” (i.e. between an individual and the state).
Interpreting Rights:
When dealing with Convention rights, it is worth bearing in mind a few general principles of
interpretation.
First, you may come across the idea of the “margin of appreciation.” Very broadly speaking, this is
the idea that different nation states which are parties to the Convention may legitimately interpret
the same provision of the Convention in different ways, depending on their local circumstances. For
instance, the French approach to the right to privacy may not be the same as that taken in the UK.
The “margin of appreciation” refers to the leeway that is given to the various states when
interpreting the Convention.
Of greater significance is the principle of legality. When a state interferes with an individual’s right,
it cannot do so in an arbitrary fashion. It must have a legal basis to do so. This principle is contained
in some of the Articles as the need for the state’s action to be ‘prescribed by law’ or ‘in accordance
with the law.’ These expressions have developed into legal tests which need to be evaluated by the
court in the event of an alleged breach of rights.
Perhaps the issue which is exercising legal academics most is the principle of proportionality. That is,
when the state interferes with your right to, say, freedom of expression, it must interfere no more
than is necessary to achieve its aim. So, a law which sought to protect freedom of religion might
legitimately restrict some forms of expression by others (for example, incitement to violence against
practitioners of that religion) but if it sought also to prohibit all criticism of religion then it would be
highly likely to be disproportionate to the aim of protecting religious freedom. The word
‘proportionality’ does not appear in either the European Convention or the Human Rights Act.
Instead, it has been ‘read into’ human rights principles by the courts.
To whom does the Human Rights Act 1998 apply?
The ECHR is an international treaty to which the UK government has become a party. The primary
focus of the ECHR is about breach by states. Accordingly, when cases are taken to the ECtHR they are
(in most cases) taken against the State and ask if the State has interfered with the human right
protected by the particular Article in question. There have been a small number of cases at the
ECtHR where one State has brought an action against another State. A famous example of this is
Ireland v UK [1978] ECHR 5310/71, which was a case brought by Ireland against the use of torture
techniques by the British military forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The Human Rights Act 1998 can only be used to enforce rights between a victim (as defined in
section 7) and a public authority (as defined in section 6). This means that in most cases rights can
only be enforced in a “vertical relationship” (i.e. between an individual and the state).
Interpreting Rights:
When dealing with Convention rights, it is worth bearing in mind a few general principles of
interpretation.
First, you may come across the idea of the “margin of appreciation.” Very broadly speaking, this is
the idea that different nation states which are parties to the Convention may legitimately interpret
the same provision of the Convention in different ways, depending on their local circumstances. For
instance, the French approach to the right to privacy may not be the same as that taken in the UK.
The “margin of appreciation” refers to the leeway that is given to the various states when
interpreting the Convention.
Of greater significance is the principle of legality. When a state interferes with an individual’s right,
it cannot do so in an arbitrary fashion. It must have a legal basis to do so. This principle is contained
in some of the Articles as the need for the state’s action to be ‘prescribed by law’ or ‘in accordance
with the law.’ These expressions have developed into legal tests which need to be evaluated by the
court in the event of an alleged breach of rights.
Perhaps the issue which is exercising legal academics most is the principle of proportionality. That is,
when the state interferes with your right to, say, freedom of expression, it must interfere no more
than is necessary to achieve its aim. So, a law which sought to protect freedom of religion might
legitimately restrict some forms of expression by others (for example, incitement to violence against
practitioners of that religion) but if it sought also to prohibit all criticism of religion then it would be
highly likely to be disproportionate to the aim of protecting religious freedom. The word
‘proportionality’ does not appear in either the European Convention or the Human Rights Act.
Instead, it has been ‘read into’ human rights principles by the courts.
To whom does the Human Rights Act 1998 apply?
The ECHR is an international treaty to which the UK government has become a party. The primary
focus of the ECHR is about breach by states. Accordingly, when cases are taken to the ECtHR they are
(in most cases) taken against the State and ask if the State has interfered with the human right
protected by the particular Article in question. There have been a small number of cases at the
ECtHR where one State has brought an action against another State. A famous example of this is
Ireland v UK [1978] ECHR 5310/71, which was a case brought by Ireland against the use of torture
techniques by the British military forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
