Advertisement

The Rule of Law and Human Rights Judicial Review: Controversies and Alternatives

  • Tom CampbellEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 18)

Abstract

This chapter has two main sections: Section 9.2 deals with two critiques of human rights-based judicial review based on the democratic thesis that law-makers should be accountable to the people they represent: (1) a rule of law objection, that the bills of rights are insufficiently specific and clear as to what they require and permit, and (2) a practical objection: that human rights judicial review is largely ineffective in promoting human rights goals. Section 9.3, argues (1) that the weaker ‘Dialogue’ or ‘Commonwealth’ versions of court-based human rights judicial review do not successfully evade either the rule of law or the efficacy critiques, and (2) that a better alternative is to institutionalise bills of rights as political constitutions involving mechanisms such as human rights-based legislative review of existing and prospective legislation.

Keywords

Formal Conception European Convention Democratic Process Judicial Review Dialogue Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allan, J. 2001. The effect of a statutory bill of rights where parliament is sovereign: The lesson from New Zealand. In Sceptical essays on human rights, ed. T. Campbell et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. 2006. The Victorian charter of human rights and responsibilities: Exegesis and criticism. Melbourne University Law Review 30(3): 906.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, T.R.S. 2001. Constitutional justice: A liberal theory of the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barendt, E. 1995. The separation of powers and constitutional government. Public Law 579.Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy, R. (ed.). 2006. Constitutionalism and democracy. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Byrnes, A., et al. 2009. Bills of rights in Australia: History, politics and law. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, T. 1996. The legal theory of ethical positivism. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, T. 2000. Democratic aspects of legal positivism. In Judicial power, democracy and legal positivism, ed. T. Campbell et al. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, T. 2001. Incorporation through interpretation. In Sceptical essays on human rights, ed. T. Campbell et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, T. 2004. Prescriptive legal positivism: Law, rights and democracy. London: Cavendish.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, T. 2006. Human rights strategies: An Australian alternative. In Protecting human rights without a bill of rights: Institutional performance and reform in Australia, ed. T. Campbell et al. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Charlesworth, H. 2002. Writing in rights: Australia and the protection of human rights. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  13. Charlesworth, H. 2006. Australia’s First bill of rights: The Australian Capital Territory’s human rights act. In Protecting rights without a bill of rights: Institutional performance and reform in Australia, ed. T. Campbell et al. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Christiano, T. 2008. The constitution of equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Commonwealth of Australia. 2009. National human rights consultation: Report. Canberra.Google Scholar
  16. Craig, P. 1997. Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: An analytical framework. Public Law 467.Google Scholar
  17. Debeljak, J. 2007. Parliamentary sovereignty and dialogue under the Victorian charter of human rights and responsibilities: Drawing the line between judicial interpretation and judicial law-making. Monash University Law Review 33(1): 9.Google Scholar
  18. Dworkin, R. 1996. Freedom’s law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ely, J.H. 1980. Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ewing, K., and J.C. Tham. 2008. The continuing futility of the human rights act. Public Law 668.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, L.L. 1969. The morality of law, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Galligan, B. 1995. A federal republic: Australia’s constitutional system of government. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galligan, B., and F.L. Morton. 2006. Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights. In Protecting human rights without a bill of rights: Institutional performance and reform in Australia, ed. T. Campbell et al. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Gardbaum, S. 2001. The new commonwealth model of constitutionalism. The American Journal of Comparative Law 49: 707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gearty, C. 2004. Principles of human rights adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hiebert, J.L. 2006. Parliamentary bills of rights: An alternative model? The Modern Law Review 69(1): 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirschl, R. 2004. Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hogg, P.W., and A.A. Bushell. 1997. The charter dialogue between courts and legislature: Or perhaps the charter of rights isn’t such a bad thing after all. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 35: 75.Google Scholar
  30. Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR). 2006. The committee’s future working practices. Twenty-Third Report of Session 2005–2006, London.Google Scholar
  31. Kavanagh, A. 2009. Constitutional review under the UK human rights act 1998. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kinley, D., and C. Ernst. 2012. Exile on main street: Australia’s legislative agenda for human rights. European Human Rights Law Review 1:58.Google Scholar
  33. Raz, J. 1977. The rule of law and its virtue. Law Quarterly Review 69: 781.Google Scholar
  34. Sadurski, W. 2002. Judicial review and the protection of constitutional rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22: 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scalia, A. 1997. A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schauer, F. 1988. Formalism. Yale Law Journal 97: 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thayer, J.B. 1893. The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review 7: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tolley, M.C. 2009. Parliamentary scrutiny of rights in the United Kingdom: Assessing the work of the joint committee on human rights. Australian Journal of Political Science 44(1): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tomkins, A. 2011. Parliament human rights and counter-terrorism. In The legal protection of human rights, ed.T. Campbell et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tushnet, M. 1999. Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tushnet, M. 2003. New forms of judicial review and the persistence of rights-and-democracy based worries. Wake Forest Law Review 38: 813.Google Scholar
  42. Tushnet, M. (ed.). 2007. Bills of rights. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Waldron, J. 1993. A rights-based critique of constitutional rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 13(1): 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waldron, J. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams, G. 2006. The Victorian charter of human rights and responsibilities: Origins and scope. Melbourne University Law Review 30: 880.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, G. 2007. A charter of rights for Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)Charles Sturt UniversityKingstonAustralia
  2. 2.School of LawKing’s CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations