Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feminizing Human Rights Adjudication: Feminist Method and the Proportionality Principle

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proportionality is one of the most important adjudicatory tools, in human rights decision-making, primarily employed to balance rights and interests. Despite this there is very little feminist analysis of its use by the courts. This article discusses the doctrine of proportionality and considers its amenability to feminist legal methods. It relies on theories of deliberative democracy to argue that the proportionality test can be applied in a manner that facilitates a more “interactive universalism”, allows for greater participation in decision-making and enables the courts to be more attentive to the disadvantaged. The commonalities between proportionality and feminist theory are examined, and its contribution to developing and reconstituting a more relational and contextual concept of rights is explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. [2006] 1 AC 42.

  2. de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and Others [1999] 1 AC 69.

  3. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 WLR 1622.

  4. Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and Kashmiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11.

  5. de Freitas supra n 2, at 80 and Daly supra n 3 at 547.

  6. Huang supra n 4 at para 19.

  7. See R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 at para 94–98 (Hereafter Begum) and R. (Gentle and another) v Prime Minister and othersn [2008] UKHL 20.

  8. See the response by Khosla (2010).

  9. For a summary of the vast literature on the ethic of care, and a critique (see Maihoffer 1998).

  10. For a discussion of essentialism (see Conaghan 2000, 366–371).

  11. [2004] 2 AC 457.

  12. Ibid at 498.

  13. Ibid Lord Hope at 490, Lord Carswell at 503 and Lady Hale at 502.

  14. Ibid at 502.

  15. [2005] UKHL 15.

  16. Supra n 7.

  17. [2004]UKHL 56.

  18. [2009] 1 AC 173.

  19. SI 1987/2203.

  20. Supra n 18 at 211.

  21. Supra n18 at 192.

  22. Supra n 18 at 215.

  23. The case raises broader issues about the relationship between the domestic and Strasbourg courts. See generally Lewis (2009) and Herring (2009).

  24. Per Lord Hope supra n 18 at 194.

  25. Supra n 3 at 548.

  26. see Arshi and O’Cinneide (2004) and Samuels (2005).

  27. In re E (a child) [2008] UKHL, paras 1–2.

  28. See also Hunter (2010, 40), Hale (2008, 319) and Etherton (2010, 728).

  29. Supra n 7 at paras 94-98. .

  30. See also Lady Hale’s judgment in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 at 181–182.

  31. R v A (no.2) [2002] 1 AC 45.

  32. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557 at 605 and Re P (Adoption: Unmarried Couple) supra n 18 at 215.

  33. s 4 of the Human Rights Act permits the court to make a declaration that a law is incompatible with the Convention. This does not invalidate the law or have an effect on the parties to the case. It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether or not to repeal a law.

  34. For a discussion of democratic dialogue (see Clayton 2004; Nicol 2006).

  35. Per Lord Hope, Kehoe supra n. 1 at 58.

  36. Per Lord Hope supra n 1 at 55–57. There were ways that parents could avoid the intervention of the CSA but this did not apply in Kehoe. Per Lady Hale at 76 and 78.

  37. When the court determines whether the right of access to a court under Article 6 is violated it will consider whether any procedural restriction is proportionate. See Golder v UK (1975) 1 EHRR 524 and Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 40.

  38. For the first instance decision see (R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWHC 1021 (Admin). For the Court of Appeal decision, and a useful critique see R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 225 and Wikeley (2005).

  39. Per Lord Hope supra n 1 at 67.

  40. The Child Support Act 1991 has been amended by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 (CMOPA 2008). The CSA is being replaced by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (C-MEC). The law no longer requires benefit recipients to use the services of CSA/C-MEC, to claim maintenance (Section 6 CMOPA 2008). However, once the C-MEC is seized of a case it has exclusive powers of enforcement, and s 8 of the Child Support Act 1991, remains in force, barring individual parents from enforcing a claim through the courts. See Wikeley (2008).

  41. [2007] EHRLR. 717.

  42. Kehoe v UK (2010/06) [2008] 2 FLR 1014 (ECHR).

  43. Ibid 1023.

  44. Ibid. 1024.

  45. Ibid 1023.

  46. Ibid 1024.

  47. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 69.

  48. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 77.

  49. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 77.

  50. Only ten per cent of lone parents are fathers. See Finn and Gloster (2010).

  51. Per Lady Hale supra n. 1 at 69–76.

  52. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 76.

  53. Per Lady Hale supra n. 1 at 78. If her view had been accepted, by the majority, then she would have provided a more effective remedy for the claimant given the fact that the s 4 declaration of incompatibility would not have had an immediate impact.

  54. Kehoe v UK supra n 42 at 1024.

  55. R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] QB. 1378 at 1393.

  56. The majority did not consider proportionality as they concluded that Article 6 of the ECHR was inapplicable. See Lord Bingham’s explanation supra n1 at 57–58.

  57. Supra n 42 at para 49.

  58. See also the discussion above of Lady Hale’s reasoning in Re P (Adoption: Unmarried Couple) supra n 18.

  59. See A v Secretary of State for the Home Department supra n. 17.

  60. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 78.

  61. Per Lady Hale supra n 1 at 78.

  62. Department for Social Security, A New Contract for Welfare: Children’s Rights and Parents’ Responsibilities 1999.

  63. Per Lady Hale supra n 5 at 78.

  64. supra n 19.

  65. supra n 4.

  66. ‘Kehoe v United Kingdom (2010/06) [2008] 2 FLR. 1014 (ECHR) Case Comment’ (2008) European Human Rights Review 681.

References

  • Alexy, Robert. 2002. A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, Trevor. 2011. Judicial deference and judicial review: Legal doctrine and legal theory. Law Quarterly Review 127: 96–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arshi, Mona, and Colm O’Cinneide. 2004. Third party intervention: The public interest reaffirmed spr. Public Law: 69–77.

  • Baines, Beverley. 2009. Contextualism, feminism and a Canadian woman judge. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, Katherine T. 1990. Feminist legal methods. Harvard Law Review 103: 829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, Jo, and Susan Millns. 1998. Feminist perspectives on law: Law’s engagement with the female body. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Wendy, and Janet Halley, eds. 2002. Left legalism/left critique. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cali, Basak. 2007. Balancing human rights? Methodological problems with weights, scales and proportions. Human Rights Quarterly 29: 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, Richard. 2004. Judicial deference and “democratic dialogue”: The legitimacy of judicial intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law Spring: 33–47.

  • Colker, Ruth. 1992. Section 1, Contextuality, and the anti-disadvantage principle. University of Toronto Law Journal 42: 77–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conaghan, Joanne, and Susan Millns, eds. 2005. Special issue: Gender, sexuality and rights. Feminist Legal Studies 13: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conaghan, Joanne. 2000. Reassessing the feminist theoretical project in law. Journal of Law and Society 27: 351–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Paul. 2008. Administrative law, 6th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Social Security. 1999. A new contract for welfare: Children’s rights and parents’ responsibilities. HMSO Cm 4349.

  • Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etherton, Terrence. 2010. Liberty, the archetype and diversity: A philosophy of judging. Public Law October: 727–746.

  • Ewing, Keith D. 2010. Bonfire of the liberties: New labour, human rights and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, David. 2002. Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, Dan, and Rosie Gloster. 2010. Lone parent obligations: A review of recent evidence on the work-related requirements within the benefit systems of different countries. Research report No 632, HMSO for the Dept. for work and pensions.

  • Fredman, Sandra. 1997. Women and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredman, Sandra. 2008. Human rights transformed: Positive rights and positive duties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabham, Emily, and Rosemary Hunter, eds. 2008. Special issue-encountering human rights: Gender, sexuality and the promise of law. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Brenda. 2008. A minority opinion? Maccabaean lecture in jurisprudence. Proceedings of the British Academy 154: 319–336.

  • Hale, Brenda. 2010. Foreward. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, eds. Hunter Rosemary, McGlynn Clare, and Rackley Erica. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, Jonathan. 2009. Who decides human rights? Law Quarterly Review 125: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, Tom. 2007. Proportionality: Comparative law lessons. Judicial Review 12: 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, Tom. 2008. The substance and structure of proportionality. Public Law Winter: 694–716.

  • Hickman, Tom. 2010. Public law after the Human Rights Act. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley, eds. 2010. Feminist judgments: From theory to practice. Oxford: Hart.

  • Hunter, Rosemary. 2008. Can feminist judges make a difference? International Journal of the Legal Profession 15: 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jhappan, Rhada, ed. 2000. Women’s legal strategies in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowell, Jeffrey. 2003. Judicial deference: Servility, civility or institutional capacity? Public Law Winter: 592–601.

  • Kavanagh, Aileen. 2007. Choosing between, sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998: Judicial reasoning after Ghaidan v. Mendoza. In Judicial reasoning under the United Kingdom Human Rights Act, eds. Helen Fenwick, Gavin Phillipson, and Roger Masterman, 114–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, Aileen. 2009. Constitutional review under the United Kingdom Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, Aileen. 2010. Defending deference in public law and constitutional theory. Law Quarterly Review 126: 222–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khosla, Madhav. 2010. Proportionality: An assault on human rights?: A reply. International Journal of Constitutional Law 8: 298–306.

  • Klug, Francesca. 2000. Values for a godless age: The story of the United Kingdom’s new bill of rights. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Nicola. 1998. Unspeakable subjects: Feminist essays in legal and social theory. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. 2009. In Re P and others: An exception to the “no more, certainly no less” rule. Public Law January: 43–47.

  • Loughlin, Martin. 2000. Sword and scales: An examination of the relationship between law and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar, eds. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, Catherine A. 1982. Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Towards a feminist jurisprudence. Signs 7: 515–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maihofer, Andrea. 1998. Care. In A companion to feminist philosophy, eds. Alison M. Jaggar, and Iris Marion Young, 383–392. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • MCcolgan, Aileen. 2000. Women under the law: The false promise of human rights. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millns, Susan. 1999. Bringing rights home: Feminism and the Human Rights Act. In Feminist perspectives on public law, eds. Susan Millns, and Noel Whitty, 181–209. London: Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minow, Martha. 1990. Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullally, Siobhan. 2006. Gender, culture and human rights: Reclaiming universalism. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, Vanessa. 2007. Law and politics at the perimeter: Re evaluating key debates in feminist theory. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, Ngaire. 2002. In praise of legal feminism. Legal Studies 22: 71–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1989. Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1: 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, Danny. 2006. Law and politics after the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law Winter: 722–751.

  • Phillips, Anne. 2001. Feminism and liberalism revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum got it right? Constellations 8: 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackley, Erica. 2006. Difference in the house of lords. Social and Legal Studies 12: 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers, Julian. 2006. Proportionality and variable intensity of review. Cambridge Law Journal 65: 174–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, Harriet. 2005. Feminist activism, third party interventions and the courts’. Feminist Legal Studies 13: 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Elizabeth. 1986. The dialectic of rights from politics: Perspectives from the women’s movement. New York University Law Review 61: 589–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the power of law. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steyn, Lord. 2005. Deference a tangled story. Public Law Summer: 346–359.

  • Sunstein, Cass. 1996. Legal reasoning and political conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins, Adam. 2003. Public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsakyrakis, Stavros. 2009. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law 7: 468–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, Gregoire. 2010. Proportionality, balancing and the cult of constitutional rights scholarship. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23: 179–202.

  • West, Robin. 1988. Jurisprudence and gender. University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikeley, Nick. 2005. Case commentary: R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: No redress when the Child Support Agency fails to deliver. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17: 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikeley, Nick. 2006. A duty but not a right: Child support after R (Kehoe) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Child and Family Law Quarterly 18: 287–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikeley, Nick. 2008. Child support: Carrots and sticks. Family Law 38: 1102–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Patricia J. 1991. The Alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Westminster, 4 Little Titchfield Street, London, W1W 7UW, UK

    Harriet Samuels

Authors
  1. Harriet Samuels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harriet Samuels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Samuels, H. Feminizing Human Rights Adjudication: Feminist Method and the Proportionality Principle. Fem Leg Stud 21, 39–60 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9225-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9225-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation