Reassessing the role of parliament in law and human rights – Brian Chang

14 October 2015 by

 

Credit: guardian.co.uk

Credit: guardian.co.uk

What is the role of parliament in the protection and realisation of the rule of law and human rights? Should there be a set of internationally agreed principles and guidelines on this issue to help parliaments develop their role? If so, what should be the content of any internationally agreed principles and guidelines? And how do we get international agreement on them? These were some of the questions posed and addressed at a recent high-level international conference held last month at Westminster. 

The conference heard about the growing international consensus about the importance of the role of parliament in the protection and realisation of the rule of law and human rights, which has emerged over the last five years. International and regional institutions, including the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC), the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth Secretariat, have taken a number of active steps to increase parliament’s role. Just last week, the HRC passed a third resolution at the close of its October 2015 session, addressing the “contribution of parliaments to the work of the HRC and its Universal Periodic Review” (link here).

As one of the primary institutions of the state, parliament shares a responsibility to protect and realise the rule of law and human rights and to implement the state’s obligations in that respect, alongside the executive and the judiciary. While parliament’s role has historically been neglected, this is beginning to change for two reasons. The first is the growing concern about the effectiveness of the international human rights machinery and its national implementation, and the need to address the gap arising when states do not effectively implement the internationally agreed standards they have committed themselves to. The second is to increase the democratic legitimacy of those standards, by having more debates in parliament between elected politicians about what the state’s human rights and rule of law obligations require. Such discussion and debate helps to democratise the rule of law and human rights by encouraging elected politicians to take more ownership of these fundamental values, and to properly consider applicable international human rights and rule of law standards in their work.

Nevertheless, despite the growing consensus about the desirability of increasing this role for parliaments, there is very little in the way of concrete guidance to show how that desirable end could be achieved, nor are there any agreed standards about the minimum requirements for such parliamentary involvement to be effective. This conference was the first attempt to help parliament to develop their role further, by considering the desirability of a set of internationally agreed principles and guidelines, distilling the essence of the good practices that have grown up and the standards that have begun to emerge.

At the conference, participants from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a number of Parliaments around the world including in the Asia Pacific, Africa and Europe, inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations and academia, agreed about the importance of parliament’s role in relation to the rule of law and human rights, that parliaments should be more involved than they currently are, and that developing guidelines in some form or other, to assist parliaments, is a good idea in principle. While there was a range of views about the scope and substance of any principles and guidelines, and about the best process for reaching international agreement, there was a strong consensus that some such agreement was a desirable end well worth pursuing.

Since the conference, the Human Rights Council has decided, in its resolution on the topic that was passed last week, to convene a panel discussion at its June 2016 session to take stock of the contribution of parliaments all over the world to the work of the Council and “to identify ways to enhance further that contribution.” This will provide a welcome opportunity to identify some concrete ways of enhancing the role of parliament in relation to the rule of law and human rights, including possibly by distilling some principles and guidelines from current best practice. If you are interested in knowing more about this subject, please visit the project website of the Oxford University ‘Parliaments, the Rule of Law and Human Rights Research Project’, where a full report of the conference has been posted.

Brian Chang is Research Assistant to the Parliaments, the Rule of Law and Human Rights Research Project. To find out more about the project, please feel free to drop him an email at brian.chang.td@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

2 comments


  1. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  2. finolamoss says:

    Who is financing the project ?.

    The Rule of Law has been severely eroded, by the policies, now of 3 governments.

    So any investigation and reiteration of it is welcome.

    But how can it be reinstated ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: