首页> 外文期刊>Human Rights Law Review >Beyond Lockean Majoritarianism?—Emergency, Institutional Failure and the UK Constitution
【24h】

Beyond Lockean Majoritarianism?—Emergency, Institutional Failure and the UK Constitution

机译:超越洛克恩多数主义?—紧急情况,机构失败和英国宪法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The reluctance of the UK judiciary to query executive declarations of emergency is well established. The ‘inherently political’ nature of this type of decision-making has long been thought by public lawyers to be beyond the ambit of legitimate judicial oversight. In the first part of this article, I suggest that one plausible way of understanding this strand of public law scholarship is to situate it within a Lockean understanding of emergencies and the legitimacy of executive action, an understanding that rules out the possibility of judicial interference with executive decision-making. My argument is that, thus grounded, this account is however under-protective of minority interests in moments of political crisis when these interests may be considered especially vulnerable to majoritarian political processes. The second part of this discussion asks whether institutional weaknesses in domestic political mechanisms of executive oversight at times of emergency have prompted re-assessment of the judiciary's traditionally deferent stance. Taking as its focus the House of Lords’ decision in Belmarsh, the article argues that the majority's nuanced rejection of the absolute non-reviewability of emergency declarations holds out the prospect (in certain defined circumstances) of successful review proceedings in respect of the claimed existence of a public emergency. Given the recent unwillingness of the European Court of Human Rights in the Strasbourg leg of the Belmarsh litigation to engage in close supra-national scrutiny of states’ actions in this sphere, developments at the domestic court level may be thought especially significant.
机译:英国司法机构不愿查询紧急情况的行政声明是众所周知的。长期以来,公共律师一直认为这种决策具有“固有的政治性”,这超出了合法司法监督的范围。在本文的第一部分中,我建议理解这部分公法奖学金的一种可行方法是将其置于洛克对紧急情况和行政行为合法性的理解之内,这种理解排除了司法干预的可能性。行政决策。我的论点是,因此,基于这一点,在政治危机时刻,这种说法对少数群体利益的保护不足,当这些利益被认为特别容易受到多数派政治进程的影响时。讨论的第二部分询问,在紧急时刻国内行政监督的政治机制中的制度性弱点是否促使对司法机构传统上不同的立场进行重新评估。文章以上议院在贝尔马什(Belmarsh)的决定为重点,认为多数派对紧急声明的绝对不可复审性的细微拒绝为声称的存在提供了成功复审程序的前景(在某些确定的情况下)紧急情况。鉴于欧洲人权法院最近不愿在Belmarsh诉讼的斯特拉斯堡分支机构对国家在这一领域的行动进行密切的超国家级审查,因此国内法院方面的发展可能被认为尤其重要。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Human Rights Law Review》 |2010年第3期|p.461-485|共25页
  • 作者

    Ian Cram;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号