Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 1
PUBLIC LAW ASSESSMENT: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS
BY [STUDENT’S NAME]
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
City
Due Date
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 2
SECTION A: Compulsory Problem Question
International human rights laws protect every human being against any form of breach of
their rights. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.55) states that it guarantees individual members of
society the right to the highest health standards. It also gives governments across the world the
obligation to take actions that prevent any threat to the health of the public and also to give the
required medical care to the members of the public that require it (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.55)
Also, Human Rights law articulates that in a scenario where there is a serious threat to public
health where there are public emergences, which threatens the nation’s safety, it then becomes
justifiable that some of the rights are restricted as long as there is a legal basis to impose such
restrictions (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.55). In the case where there is a legal basis, it then
becomes strictly necessary based on scientific evidence and that they are neither discriminatory,
not arbitrary in the application, and that they are of a limited period, subject to review, are
proportion in the achieving of the objectives and respects human dignity.
Before deciding as to whether to sue LAC or not, it is important to check the foundation
of the restrictions imposed by LAC and the severity of COVID-19. The severity and the scale of
COVID-19 rise to a level with a threshold amounting to threatening public health, which justifies
the restrictions on certain rights such as limiting people rights to movement freedom through
isolations, the imposition of quarantine, and the rights to hold large gatherings (Health
Protection Act (2020). At the same time, there is a need to carefully pay attention to human
rights including human rights principles like respect for the dignity of human beings and
transparency and non-discrimination which could effectively help in response to the crisis by
limiting the harm that might emanate from imposing the over bread guidelines and measures to
meet the criteria indicate above.
The guidance for attending or arranging a funeral during the coronavirus period in the
UK provides measures helpful in curbing the spread of COVID-19. The primary principles of
this guidance provided by the government indicate that they are meant to help the public
involved in and attending funerals in England during the pandemic and applies to people of all
faiths. It indicates that bereaved people should be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity.
The conduct of the crematorium manager indicated in the case is against the requirement
provided by the Health Protection Act (2020) which states that the bereaved people should be
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 3
treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity. Stopping the funeral hymn and allowing it to
continue when Tamsin abided by the rule was unjustified. Also, the Health Protection Act (2020)
indicates that the manager should reasonably take necessary measures using reasonable force and
should provide reasonable instructions considered and the person who contravenes with the
regulation should have a reasonable excuse. In this case, the manager does not apply reasonable
force as stopping the instrumental and ensuring that the instrumentals continue after Tamsin
complies was too much force and an unreasonable way of instructing a person acting under a
reasonable excuse as she was comforting a bereaved family member.
The other provision provided by the Health Protection Act (2020) is that funerals can
continue taking place while ensuring that minimizing the risks of infections is considered. The
actions of the manager of stopping the funeral service because a rule had been breached by
Tamsin does not meet the provision above. Importantly, the Health Projection Act (2020)
indicates that there is an exception to persons from the same household, which are defined as the
people from the same roof and who share the same facilities, from following the social
distancing requirement unless if any one of them is suspected or has been confirmed to have
contracted COVID-19. In this case, Tamsin and Bert are from the same household which means
that the COVID-19 regulation that people should be 2 meters from each other does not apply. It,
therefore, requires that the manager should have included such information in the process of risk
assessment and management. The manager contravenes the regulation by stopping the service
because the members of the same household had broken the COVID-19 regulation on social
distancing. Therefore, Given the above considerations and facts, Tamsin should commence the
proceedings against the LAC.
The Convention Rights that might be applicable
One of the convention rights is “the right not to be punished for something that was not
against the law at the time” (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 7). This article indicates that an
individual should not be held as guilty of an offense on an omission or on any account that does
not constitute any criminal offense falling under the national law during the time it was
committed (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.213). In the case of Tamsin and Bert, the manager saw
them as guilty of committing the offense of breaking the COVID-19 regulations on social
distancing. However, this was not the case because they had not committed any crime under
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 4
national law. It is because the alleged offense did not exist because an exception is provided by
the Health Protection Act (2020) which indicates that social distancing rules are exempt to
people living within the same household. Therefore, by stopping the service without this
consideration, the manager contravened this human rights provision.
The other convention right that might apply to this case is found in article 8 which states
the “right to respect for family and private life” (Human Right Act 1998, Article 8). The behavior
of the manager contravenes the section on respect to the family. Raogna (2012, p.17) indicates
that the convention of human rights holds that every individual in England is entitled to the right
to have family relationships and enjoy them without any form of interference or disturbance from
the government. It includes aspects such as the right to have contact with family members and
the right to live with family members. Family life used in this article, according to Raogna
(2012, p.17) means relationships between an adopted parent and an adoptive child, unmarried
couple, and also fostered child and foster parents. In this case, Tamsin and Bert are a daughter
and a father which is indicative of family life. The manager’s act of keeping them a-part during a
funeral of a loved one contravenes this right. The manager is unlawfully restricting these
members of a family from contacting or relating with one another during a moment that requires
them to utilize the prelateship between them in comforting each other for their loss. Worst still,
they are restricted based on unlawful grounds as they are members of the same household where
reasonable actions and considerations should be applied regarding the imposition of COVID-19
social distancing regulation.
The other convention right applicable in this case is the “right to freedom of thought,
belief, and religion” (Human Rights Act, 1998, Article 9). According to the interpretation
provided by Alegre (2017, p.73), this right gives the people the ability and right to change their
beliefs or religion at any time and also gives them the right to put these beliefs and rights into
action. Further, Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (2005)
held that the freedom to the manifestation of an individual’s beliefs or religion is subject to only
limitations as given by law. Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and
others (2005) also states that it should be necessary in a democratic society in public safety
interest, for public order protection, morals or health, or to protect the freedoms or rights of
others. Also, Alegre (2017, p.73) indicates that this right allows individuals to wear clothing
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 5
prescribed by religion, take part in religious activities including worship, take about their religion
such that the public authorities should not stop any individual from practicing, talking about, and
engaging in acts regarding one’s beliefs, religion and thought. The manager in the case provided
contravenes the convention right above by stopping Tamsin from practicing the belief that one
has to comfort a bereaved person especially when they break-down from the pain and emotions
of losing a family member. It is one of the acts of the manager that were not meant for purposes
of public safety, morals or health and freedoms of other people or public order since her action
did not contravene any of the COVID-19 restrictions or regulations.
The last convention right that applies to this case is the third article’s provision on the
“right to freedom from torture or inhumane and degrading treatment (Human Rights Act 1998,
Article 3). In interpreting this article, Oboirien (2020, p.14) indicates that any form of ill-
treatment that causes serious suffering either physical or mental and anything undignified or
grossly humiliating is highly prohibited. Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) held that no one,
including deportees, should be subjected to any form of torture or degrading and inhuman
punishment or treatment, or extradition if there is a likelihood that doing so will lead to
degrading treatment. In the case of Tamsin and Bert, the manager’s act of stopping the funeral
service was an inhuman treatment because these family members were already in a bad mental or
psychological state, and stopping the service in the middle of the funeral was a form of torture. It
is because it was a requirement provided by the deceased person ad which was important to
Tamsin and her father and stopping aggravated their suffering. It is also a degrading treatment
because it is an act that is extremely undignified and humiliating and the situation in which the
action took place was a situation where the vulnerability was higher.
Remedies available to Tamsin
There are numerous remedies available for Tamsin. One of the remedies is that she can
sue LAC for a variety of grounds. One of the grounds is on the basis that her “right to freedom
from torture or inhumane and degrading treatment”, the “right to freedom of thought, belief and
religion”, the freedom to the “right to respect for family and private life” and the “the right not to
be punished for something that was not against the law at the time” (Human Rights Act 1998,
Article 8, 7, 3&9). It is because the actions of the manager were not following the law. After all,
Tamsin had not committed any crime under national law or COVID-19 regulations. She was
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 6
being denied her right to practice her beliefs concerning the dead persons’ wishes. She was being
denied the right to be associated with family during a critical time when they were undergoing
pain and suffering and also, she was being added more torture by the degrading and undignified
act of the manager stopping the service and her from comforting Bert. Despite the guidelines
provided that no one was allowed to break the rules for mitigating the spread of COVID-19,
there is an exception provided by the Health Protection Act (2020) that exempts members of the
same household from being imposed social distancing rules.
The other remedy for Tamsin is to ensure that she looks for legal representation because
the issue at her disposal is a delegate issue. After all, it concerns a conflict between the current
guidelines on a serious global health issue, convention rights, and national laws. A law will serve
a critical purpose in her case because it will allow her to avoid potential ramifications that could
result from suing LAC that is otherwise avoidable (Kritzer, 2018, p.875). Also, Kritzer (2018,
p.876) adds that having a lawyer in situations where one is using an authority helps not only in
the process of challenging evidence to ensure that the evidence is not against oneself, but also to
ensure that she does not follow the wrong procedures or file the wrong documents which could
derail the case. Importantly, a lawyer will help Tamsin build a stronger proceeding against LAC
and will also provide free consultation on how to proceed with the case to give her an idea of the
type of proceeding she will be starting and a projection of what the outcome might be for her.
SECTION B: Essay Question
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 7
Anyone can Seek Justice in the UK Courts
The Human Rights Act 1998 is a UL law that was passed in 1998 which is impotent
because it serves a variety of services to the people in the country. Hoffman & Rowe (2010,
p.114) says the most important aspect of this law is that it plays a critical role in letting the
citizens of the UK defend their rights in courts in the country. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.114)
adds that it lets them have the ability to compel public organizations in the country such as the
police service, the government, and the local councils to treat them with fairness, equally, with
respect, and with dignity. It also defines the key freedoms and rights of individuals in the
country. The European convention of human rights covered in Ac 1 offers protection to the
human rights of the people in countries within the European Council including the United
Kingdom (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.115). The HRA offers protection to everyone in the
country regardless of whether the person is seeking asylum, a foreigner, or a citizen. Importantly,
all public authorities in the country should follow these rights by respecting and protecting
human rights unless in the cases where a law prevents such protection. According to the Human
Rights Act 1998, these authorities should act in a way that is compatible with human rights.
The most important aspect of this law is that it plays a critical role in letting the citizens
of the UK defend their rights in courts in the country. Article 1 of the Human Rights Act (1998)
for instance, even though it is not included in the Act because it is fulfilled through its creation,
states that the states in the European Council should secure the rights of the convention in their
jurisdictions. It allows the citizens, those seeking asylum, and foreigners in the country to seek
justice in a court within the UK. It integrates the rights set out by the European Convention on
Human rights into the country’s domestic laws. For instance, Article 6 indicates that everyone
has the right to a fair trial (Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.214). Everyone has the right to a hearing
or public and fair trial if one is charged with a given criminal offense and has to go to a court or a
certain public authority is offering a decision that impacts upon one’s obligations or civil rights
(Hoffman & Rowe, 2010, p.214). In this case, the obligations or civil rights are those that are
recognized in the UK law including planning law, contract law, employment law, family law,
and property law.
The domestic human rights laws in the UK indicates that in the determination of a
person’s obligation or civil rights or any type of criminal charge, such a person is entitled to a
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 8
public and fair hearing within a time that is reasonable by an impartial and independent tribunal
created by the law. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.215) adds that the judgment provided for such an
individual should be publicly pronounced but the public and the press can be excluded a part of
the whole trial in the interest of public order, national security, or morals. It includes scenarios
where the interest of protecting private life or the interests of a minor or juvenile. Moran (2018,
p.81) asserts that this article indicates that everyone is whenever anyone is charged with any
form of a criminal offense, he or she is presumed as innocent until he or she is proven guilty
based on the law. Further, Moran (2018, p.81) states that those charged have minimum rights
including the right to be informed in a language they can understand and with enough detail
regarding the cause and the nature of the accusation against them. Also, such persons should be
provided with adequate facilities and time for preparing their defense, have the right to defend
themselves with legal assistance, have to be examined and examine witnesses, and must get
interpretation assistance for free. An excellent example of this case is DG v ESA, (2010) which
held that DG was not offered a fair and public hearing of the appeal he had filed as enshrined in
article 6 of HRA 1998. The decision provided in this case took into account aspects such as the
JobCentre Plus advice, the lack of communication among the departments, and the mental health
problems of the claimant. Therefore, the domestic human rights law in the UK, through its
judgeless ensures that the rights of everyone are protected.
HRA 1998 Ensures that Authorities Must Respect Human Rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 let foreigners, citizens, and asylum seekers to have the
ability to compel public organizations in the country. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.217) indicates
that the authorities include the police service, the government, and the local councils which are
required to treat them with fairness, equally, with respect, and with dignity. Article 2, for
instance, plays a critical role in protecting the rights of individuals to access an effective
education. Black (2018, p.1059) asserts that the parents have the right to make sure that their
philosophical and religious beliefs are followed and respected in their education of their children.
However, the Human Rights Act (1998, s6) states that the right to education does not mean that
one can learn anything at whatever time one wants but it creates an education system that
governs the provision of education based on specific needs and aspects of the learners, society
and other issues. Human Rights Act (1998, s6) also obliges the government to regulate education
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 9
such as to create education laws that make it compulsory and other obligations such as the
imposition of safety and health requirements in schools.
The domestic human rights law in the UK plays a critical role in ensuring that the
authorities include the police service, the government, and the local councils which are required
to treat them with fairness, equally, with respect, and with dignity. For example, under Article
2’s protocol 1 on the right to education, no one is denied the right to education. Beiter, Karran,
and Appiagyei-Atua (2016, p.255) state that the state, in its functions of providing education, has
to respect the parents’ rights to make sure that the teaching and education conform with the
philosophical and religious convictions. An excellent example of case law in the UK that
demonstrates this type of protection of human rights is R (Hounslow London Borough Council)
v School Admissions Appeal Panel for Hounslow London Borough Council (2002). In this case,
the school had given priority to students who live near the catchment area of the school. R
(Hounslow London Borough Council) v School Admissions Appeal Panel for Hounslow London
Borough Council (2002) held that the admission policy of the primary school in West London
was not in violation of the rights. However, it emphasized scenarios providing an example that in
case of applications exceeds the school’s available placement, a fair process for objective and
practical decisions should be considered by the admission authorities.
The other section of the Human Rights Act that demonstrates the protection of human
rights for everyone in the UK is the right selection. Human Rights Act (1998, s3) indicates that
the government should support everyone’s right to free expression through holding an election
after a specific period or reasonable intervals and must ensure that everyone votes in secret.
Saunders (2017, p. 124) asserts that this right is absolute since there is no restriction to it, but the
government has the power to regulate or limit how elections are conducted such as proportional
representation in the UK election process. It also gives the government sanction some individuals
against this right such as those prisoners who are serving custodial sentences who are not
allowed to vote. Saunders (2017, p.125) adds that this type of ban on voting among the prisoners
serving the custodial sentences is considered by the European court as in opposition to protocol 1
of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it contravenes the individual’s right to freely
express themselves through a free and fair election. However, Saunders (2017, p.125) indicates
that the Court advises the government of the UK to have a wider discretion on the issue adding
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 10
that those prisoners affected should have an entitlement to compensation. This judgment,
however, does not affect the law in the UK because its parliament still has to decide on whether
as well as how legislative changes can be made it the issue of prisoners’ voting.
The domestic human rights law in the UK enables fundamental human rights to be
effectively secured in domestic courts. It is achieved by ensuring that the right to free elections is
enforced in the country. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.256) indicates that High Contracting Parties
are obliged to ensure that a free and fair election is held at reasonable and specific intervals
through a secret ballot. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.256) also adds that they are also required to
undertake this obligation under conditions favorable for the free expression of the peoples’
choices and opinions of the legislature. Therefore, the two examples above the right to education
and the right to freely express oneself and the accompanying examples of case domestic case
laws in the UK demonstrates the role of authorities in ensuring that the right of individuals in the
country as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 is secured and protected for everyone.
It Ensures that Laws are Compatible with Convention Rights
The Human Rights Act also ensures that the laws are incompatible with the Convention
rights. According to Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.301), in practice, the function of the HRA 1998
above means that the parliament will often ensure that the new laws created in the country are
following the rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights. Hoffman &
Rowe (2010, p.256) adds that it also requires the courts, whenever possible, to interpret the laws
in a manner that is compatible with the convention rights. A good example of this regulation is
the provision of Article 7 of the Human Rights Act. Article 7 of the Human Rights Act (1998)
indicates that there is no punishment without an accompanying law. In their interpretation,
Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.256) states that this article means that one cannot be charged with an
offense for any form of actions that were not offenses when one committed them. It, therefore,
means that authorities such as the police must ensure that they explain such that one knows that
the offense they committed broke specific laws.
The right to no punishment without the law is an absolute law. It is interpreted that it is a
type of law that cannot be restricted in any way. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.267) asserts that
even though that is the case, the Human Right Act 1998 makes no exception for those actions
which are against the civilized nation’s general law during the period they are committed.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 11
Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.256) comments that these were the kind of provisions that allowed
crimes against humanity and war crimes prosecuted after the World War.
The UK domestic Human Rights laws protect and secure this right for everyone in the
country. Hoffman & Rowe (2010, p.256) indicates that HRA 1998 article 7 is respected by the
domestic laws in the Up where the courts ensure that no one is held guilty in a court of law of
any offense on omission or account of an act which that person never committed or which under
the national law does not constitute an offense during the time it is committed. Hoffman & Rowe
(2010, p.256) adds that no heavier penalty can be imposed on an offender than what was initially
applicable during a time when it was committed. Additionally, Sedelmeier (2017, p.338)
indicates that the courts of law in the UK ensures that they do not prejudice a punishment and
trial of any individual for omission or any act which was committed at a time when it was a
criminal offense based on the civilized nations’ laws. For example, R v Secretary of State for the
Home Department, ex parted Uttley (2-004) held that the infringement of human laws occurs
o0nly if a sentence went beyond the maximum penalty available under national law that was in
force during a time when t6he offense was committed.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 12
References
Abdi, C. (2019). The right to education in international human rights law. Oxford University
Press.
Ackerman, B. (2021). Revolutionary constitutions: Charismatic leadership and the rule of law.
Harvard University Press.
Addo, M. K. (2018). The legal nature of international human rights. Brill Nijhoff.
Ahmed, T. (2019). Brexit, discrimination and EU (legal) tools. European Law Review, 44(4),
515-531.
Alegre, S., 2017. Freedom of thought, belief, and religion and freedom of expression and
opinion. In Human Rights of Migrants in the 21st Century (pp. 72-77). Routledge.
Alston, P. (2018). The populist challenge to human rights. Journal of Human Rights Practice,
9(1), 1-15.
Alston, P., & Goodman, R. (2016). International human rights. Oxford University Press.
Amnesty International. (2022). The state of the world's human rights. Amnesty International Ltd.
Amos, M. (2017). The value of the European Court of Human Rights to the United Kingdom.
European Journal of International Law, 28(3), 763-785.
Anagnostou, D. (2020). Rights in the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University
Press.
Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don't talk
about it). Princeton University Press.
Barber, N. W. (2018). The principles of constitutionalism. Oxford University Press.
Barnard, C. (2019). The substantive law of the EU: The four freedoms (6th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Barnard, C., & Peers, S. (Eds.). (2020). European Union law. Oxford University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 13
Bates, E. (2020). The evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From its
inception to the creation of a permanent court of human rights. Oxford University Press.
Baxi, U. (2019). The future of human rights. Oxford University Press.
Beetham, D. (2018). Human rights and democracy: A multi-faceted relationship. Routledge.
Beiter, K.D., Karran, T., and Appiagyei-Atua, K., 2016. Academic freedom and its protection in
the law of European states: Measuring an international human right. European Journal of
Comparative Law and Governance, 3(3), pp.254-345.
Bellamy, R. (2017). Political constitutionalism and the Human Rights Act. International Journal
of Constitutional Law, 15(4), 1019-1039.
Benhabib, S. (2018). Exile, statelessness, and migration. Princeton University Press.
Benvenisti, E. (2018). Reclaiming democracy: The strategic uses of foreign and international law
by national courts. American Journal of International Law, 102(2), 241-274.
Besson, S. (2020). Sovereignty. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Bianchi, A. (2016). International law theories: An inquiry into different ways of thinking. Oxford
University Press.
Bielefeldt, H. (2021). Freedom of religion or belief: An international law commentary. Oxford
University Press.
Bilchitz, D. (2019). Poverty and fundamental rights: The justification and enforcement of socio-
economic rights. Oxford University Press.
Black, D.W., 2018. The Fundamental Right to Education. Notre Dame L. Rev., 94, p.1059.
Bogdandy, A. V. (2017). European law beyond 'ever closer union': Repositioning the concept, its
thrust and the ECJ's comparative methodology. European Law Journal, 23(3-4), 433-453.
Boyle, K. (2018). The European Convention on Human Rights and the United Kingdom. In C.
Gearty (Ed.), Human Rights in the UK (pp. 43-62). Hart Publishing.
Brems, E., & Desmet, E. (Eds.). (2020). Integrated human rights in practice: Rewriting human
rights decisions. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 14
Brems, E., & Lavrysen, L. (2015). 'Don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut': Less restrictive
means in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law
Review, 15(1), 139-168.
Brownlie, I., & Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie's principles of public international law. Oxford
University Press.
Búrca, G. D. (2018). Human rights experimentalism. American Journal of International Law,
112(2), 159-195.
Bustamante, T. (2020). Teoria do precedente judicial: A justificação e a aplicação de regras
jurisprudenciais. Noeses.
Çali, B. (2018). The authority of international law: Obedience, respect, and rebuttal. Oxford
University Press.
Cali, B. (2018). The balancing test: Toward a theory of adjudication for the European Court of
Human Rights. European Journal of Legal Studies, 11(2), 23-59.
Cannie, H., & Voorhoof, D. (2016). The abuse clause and freedom of expression in the European
Human Rights Convention: An added value for democracy and human rights protection?
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(1), 54-83.
Carolan, E. (2021). The new separation of powers: Rethinking the relationship between courts
and agencies. Oxford University Press.
Carozza, P. G. (2017). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights: A reply.
European Journal of International Law, 19(5), 931-944.
Cassese, A. (2020). International law. Oxford University Press.
Chahal v United Kingdom (1996)
Chernilo, D. (2017). The question of the human in the Anthropocene debate. European Journal of
Social Theory, 20(1), 44-60.
Choudhry, S. (Ed.). (2018). Constitutional design for divided societies: Integration or
accommodation? Oxford University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 15
Clapham, A. (2019). Human rights: A very short introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Clayton, R., & Tomlinson, H. (2020). Fair trial rights (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Clayton, R., & Tomlinson, H. (2021). The law of human rights. Oxford University Press.
Coomans, F. (2019). Content and scope of the right to education as a human right and obstacles
to its realization. In Y. Donders & V. Volodin (Eds.), Human Rights in Education,
Science and Culture: Legal Developments and Challenges (pp. 183-229).
UNESCO/Ashgate.
Costa, J. P. (2018). The European Court of Human Rights: Consistency of its case-law and
positive obligations. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 26(3), 449-454.
Costello, C. (2020). The human rights of migrants and refugees in European law. Oxford
University Press.
Craig, P. (2018). UK, EU and global administrative law: Foundations and challenges. Cambridge
University Press.
Craig, P. (2021). EU administrative law. Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie's principles of public international law. Oxford University Press.
Croquet, N. A. (2018). The role and extent of a proportionality analysis in the judicial
assessment of human rights limitations within international criminal proceedings. Brill
Nijhoff.
Daly, T. G. (2017). Judging and the rule of law. Edinburgh Law Review, 21(3), 342-369.
Davis, F. (2019). The Human Rights Act and juridification: Saving democracy from law.
Politics, 39(2), 196-210.
De Búrca, G. (2021). Reframing human rights in a turbulent era. Oxford University Press.
De Londras, F., & Dzehtsiarou, K. (2018). Great debates on the European Convention on Human
Rights. Macmillan International Higher Education.
De Schutter, O. (2019). International human rights law: Cases, materials, commentary.
Cambridge University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 16
Dembour, M. B. (2020). When humans become migrants: Study of the European Court of
Human Rights with an inter-American counterpoint. Oxford University Press.
DG v Secretary of State for Work Pension and Pensions (ESA) (2010).
Donald, A., & Leach, P. (2020). Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford
University Press.
Donnelly, J. (2017). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University
Press.
Dothan, S. (2020). International judicial review: When should international courts intervene?
Cambridge University Press.
Douglas-Scott, S. (2018). Human rights as a basis for justice in the European Union.
Transnational Legal Theory, 8(1), 59-78.
Douzinas, C. (2019). The end of human rights: Critical legal thought at the turn of the century.
Hart Publishing.
Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (Eds.). (2019). International legal theory: Foundations and
frontiers. Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, M. (2018). The conservative human rights revolution: European identity, transnational
politics, and the origins of the European convention. Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2018). Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2018). European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of Human
Rights. Cambridge University Press.
Eckes, C. (2019). EU powers under external pressure: How the EU's external actions alter its
internal structures. Oxford University Press.
Eide, A., Krause, C., & Rosas, A. (Eds.). (2020). Economic, social and cultural rights: A
textbook. Brill Nijhoff.
Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2018). The endurance of national constitutions.
Cambridge University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 17
Elliott, M. (2017). Beyond the European Convention: Human rights and the common law.
Current Legal Problems, 68(1), 85-117.
Feldman, D. (2021). Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales. Oxford University
Press.
Fenwick, H. (2019). Fenwick on civil liberties and human rights (5th ed.). Routledge.
Finnis, J. (2017). Human rights and common good: Collected essays volume III. Oxford
University Press.
Fredman, S. (2018). Comparative human rights law. Oxford University Press.
Fredman, S. (2018). Intersectional discrimination in EU gender equality and non-discrimination
law. European Commission.
Gardbaum, S. (2020). The new commonwealth model of constitutionalism: Theory and practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Gearty, C. (2019). On fantasy island: Britain, Europe, and human rights. Oxford University
Press.
Gerards, J. (2018). General principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge
University Press.
Gewirth, A. (2017). Human rights: Essays on justification and applications. University of
Chicago Press.
Ginsburg, T., & Huq, A. Z. (2021). How to save a constitutional democracy. University of
Chicago Press.
Goodhart, M. (2018). Injustice: Political theory for the real world. Oxford University Press.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2018). The refugee in international law (4th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Greer, S. (2018). The margin of appreciation: Interpretation and discretion under the European
Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 18
Greer, S. (2020). The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, problems and
prospects. Cambridge University Press..
Griffin, J. (2019). On human rights. Oxford University Press.
Guzman, A. T., & Meyer, T. L. (2018). International soft law. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(1),
171-225.
Hale, B. (2019). Freedom of religion and belief. European Human Rights Law Review, 6, 595-
607.
Helfer, L. R., & Slaughter, A. M. (2018). Toward a theory of effective supranational
adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107(2), 273-391.
Heyns, C., & Killander, M. (Eds.). (2020). Compendium of key human rights documents of the
African Union. Pretoria University Law Press.
Hirschl, R. (2021). Comparative matters: The renaissance of comparative constitutional law.
Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, D., and Rowe, J.J., 2010. Human rights in the UK: An introduction to the Human
Rights Act 1998. Pearson Education.
Hunt, L. (2018). Inventing human rights: A history. W. W. Norton & Company.
Hunt, M. (2017). Using human rights law in English courts. Hart Publishing.
Ignatieff, M. (2018). Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press.
Ignatieff, M. (2019). The ordinary virtues: Moral order in a divided world. Harvard University
Press.
Kanetake, M., & Nollkaemper, A. (2019). The rule of law at the national and international levels:
Contestations and deference. Hart Publishing.
Keller, H., & Stone Sweet, A. (2018). A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national
legal systems. Oxford University Press.
Klabbers, J. (2021). International law. Cambridge University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 19
Klatt, M. (2019). Proportionality and judicial activism: Fundamental rights adjudication in
Canada, Germany and South Africa. Cambridge University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2018). The gentle civilizer of nations: The rise and fall of international law
1870–1960. Cambridge University Press.
Kremnitzer, M., Steiner, T., & Lang, A. (2018). Proportionality in action: Comparative and
empirical perspectives on the judicial practice. Cambridge University Press.
Kritzer, H.M., 2018. To lawyer or not to lawyer: is that the question? Journal of Empirical Legal
Studies, 5(4), pp.875-906.
Landman, T. (2020). Studying human rights. Routledge.
Lauterpacht, H. (2017). An international bill of the rights of man. Oxford University Press.
Legg, A. (2018). The margin of appreciation in international human rights law: Deference and
proportionality. Oxford University Press.
Letsas, G. (2019). A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Oxford University Press.
Marks, S. (2016). The riddle of all constitutions: International law, democracy, and the critique
of ideology. Oxford University Press.
McCorquodale, R. (2018). International human rights law: Cases, materials, commentary (2nd
ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Moeckli, D., Shah, S., & Sivakumaran, S. (2019). International human rights law (3rd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Möller, K. (2017). The global model of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press.
Moran, C.F., 2018. Human Rights Law. Studying EU Law, p.81.
Mowbray, A. (2018). Cases, materials, and commentary on the European Convention on Human
Rights (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Moyn, S. (2018). Not enough: Human rights in an unequal world. Harvard University Press.
Public Law Assessment: International Human Rights Laws 20
Mutua, M. (2019). Human rights standards: Hegemony, law, and politics. SUNY Press.
Nickel, J. W. (2019). Making sense of human rights (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2018). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap
Press.
Oboirien, K., 2020. The Act of Torture and Inhumane Treatment as Human Rights Violations
during COVID-19 in Nigeria. Available at SSRN 3688363.
O'Cinneide, C. (2018). Human rights and the UK constitution. British Academy.
Perez, O. (2018). The hybrid legal-scientific dynamic of transnational scientific institutions.
European Journal of International Law, 26(2), 391-416.
R (Hounslow London Borough Council) v School Admissions Appeal Panel for Hounslow
London Borough Council (2002)
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parted Uttley (2-004)
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (2005)
Roagna, I., 2012. Protecting the right to respect for private and family life under the European
Convention on Human Rights (Vol. 24). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Saunders, K.W., 2017. Free Expression and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Sedelmeier, U., 2017. Political safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU: the limits of
material sanctions and the scope of social pressure. Journal of European Public Policy,
24(3), pp.337-351.
The Human Rights Act 1998
Wolfsteller, R., 2020. Out of sync: The failed translation of international human rights in the
creation of the UK Human Rights Act. Journal of Human Rights, pp.1-19.
