Introduction
The passage of HRA 1998, by virtue of Sections 3 and 4 of the enactment, has become very critical for the maintenance, respect, and promotion of human rights within the country’s legal environment. These chapters indicate how human rights can be ensured, but at the same time we are therefore compelled to scrutinize and find out how effective these tools are and the way they work together. This paper identifies and critically appraises the roles of the HRA in sections 3 and 4, in particular, their roles in protecting human rights and how section 4 plays against section 3.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Section 3: Interpretation
The Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3, is an essential foundation for legal action against human rights infringement in the UK.. Under this Act, the courts have the authority to interpret the laws in a way that supports Convention rights to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, this Article offers rigorous and valuable tools, firstly providing the domestic legal systems with the option to adjust to the latest developments in international human rights constantly. Section 3 allows judicial discretion to interpret legislature in a manner most compatible with Convention rights; this is vital for the security of modern societies as legal frameworks become flexible enough to accommodate societal shifts in terms of values or needs. The role of section 3 in understanding the flexibility and adaptability of human rights decision-making against the unfolding changes of societies is sharply unfolded by the Commission on a Bill of Rights (2012), showing that it is necessary for adequate and relevant protections of human rights in the UK legal system.
While Section 3 does not ignore its noteworthy elements, it is also redirected to achieve its set objectives. An issue is facing the judicial overstepping and the need for a unified practice in the use of this method. Critics are of the view that the wide-ranging powers vested in the courts pursuant to Section 3 of the Constitution might allow judicial activism to thrive, which is basically when courts behave as mere puppets and legislate from the bench rather than playing their respective roles. This uncertainty is overtly an issue in the debate centered on the “weak-form review” thesis mentioned by Kavanagh (2015)1. In the case of weak-form review, the courts seek to give a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the legislation, with the interpretation extending the purpose of the bill or even bringing it in line with human rights standards, which may be a violation of the separation of powers and democratic principles. The case was clarified, and the authority of the courts was established. Thus, though the section contributes to giving more control to the judiciary, the issue of the right balance between judicial control and parliamentary sovereignty is still in question.
Further, the opponent of Section 3[The critics contend dissenting views against Section 3] also casts doubt on the issue of inconsistency in judiciary decisions. The uncertainties that may result from the excessive discretion of courts facing the decision-making on this point are lack of similarity in interpretations of human rights standards across the world at various occasions and places, leading to unpredictability and unclarity being introduced into the law1. The fertility or industry within a society is an intricate ecosystem with complex healing processes. Hence, although Article 3 endorses trial judges to interpret the existing domestic laws from a human rights lens, at the same time, this inevitably means that courts should examine the texts of cases and decide carefully to make sure that the concordant interpretation is applied.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Section 4: Declarations of Incompatibility
The fourth section of the Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the crucially essential provisions which it provides the courts the power to issue a declaration of incompatibility when domestic law contravenes the Convention rights. It helps in this matter to pinpoint legislative shortcomings and, therefore, to remind where the legislation is inadequate, just as it shows where it fails to meet human rights standards. The court makes the laws unconstitutional by issuing declarations of incompatibility. The principle is to highlight the parts of law where reforms are needed to provide legal compliance with international human rights obligations. Through this proactive role, Section 4 seeks to expose flaws of legislation and, thereby, bring more accountability and transparency to the legislative process, which Bezmia Amos (2009) defined. The Section 4 mechanism helps to draw public attention to the violations of human rights that occur in any country’s legislation. Therefore, it makes lawmakers think of ways to eliminate these shortcomings and act in accordance with their human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Still, as strong as this position might be, Section 4 has limited power to enforce or cure the injustices it has detected. Unlike some of the human rights mechanisms in some other jurisdictions, Section 4 needs to be able to declare and strike down incompatible state laws. Contrary to that, it just provides a recognition of incompatibility in an attempt to compel Parliament to decide on whether and what ways to redress the human rights violation3. This limitation, therefore, raises doubts regarding the presumed positive impact of the Section 4 proclamations and the extent to which they can have a concrete effect on the protection of human rights. Dickson states that this limited power of intervention significantly limits the outright effectiveness of Section 4 by frequently resulting in legislative inactiveness and lengthy delays over which human rights deficiencies are addressed.
Also, both Section 4’s efficacy and visibility could be adversely influenced by partisan politics and institutional dynamics within the Parliament. For legislators, addressing the human rights issues exposed within Section 4 declarations might be hindered due to the numerous policy issues they deal with, ideological differences, and their fear of political backlashes. This hesitance may obstruct the immediate and effective results, thereby subsequently weakening the effectiveness of Section 4 in securing human rights. This suggests that, in addition to Section 4’s function pointing out the legislative soft spots, the success of this strategy is dependent on the ability of the Parliament to take the necessary measures.
Relationship between Section 3 and Section 4
The bond between sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is fundamental for the efficient performance of human rights protection and the UK legal system altogether. The interpretative formula is the courts’ means of guaranteeing that a state’s domestic legislation is not in conflict with human rights law. This preventive strategy enables courts to go in line with international laws that ensure human rights awareness and thus encourage the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Along with that, Section 4 grants power to courts to order their declaration of human rights obligations where such legislation conflicts with any human rights obligations. Unevenness of national law, to a certain extent, is highlighted by clause 4. Such a moment helps to drive the dialog between the legislative and the judicial, aiming at the improvement of human rights conditions in a country.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of Parliament-judiciary cooperation cooperation in Sections 3 and 4 critically depends on the openness of communication and collaboration between the two key institutions. Horne and Maer highlight that achieving the goal of the HRA requires good cooperation among both sections. This includes established channels of dialogue, mutual respect for one another, and pledging to uphold the basic human rights tenets. In that perspective, the contestation is as formidable as a different perspective and priorities of the judiciary and Parliament towards human rights5. On the one hand, the courts tend toward protecting individual rights and freedoms. On the other hand, parliaments need to balance these concerns with wider policy objectives and political concerns that may have the potential to create conflict in the performance of human rights law.
Moreover, the influence may originate from broader external factors such as the overall functioning of the UK legal system and the political position. The independence of the judiciary is the paramount criterion for making decisions in justice systems across the world without bias and bestowing their power freely4. While political pressures and partisan interest can affect the deliberative process in the 3rd and 4th Sections, there is a risk that this may muffle the effectiveness of these sections in protecting human rights. Additionally, political changes such as a change of leadership or replacement of legislative bodies can alter the importance attached to human rights issues allotted by Parliament to which section 4 declarations made mean less response or no response to these declarations from Parliament, which further complicates the relationship between both sections.
Conclusion
Summing up, these two sections of the HRA, alongside other basic human rights laws, serve as essential instruments for protecting human rights in the UK legal system. Section 3 allows for interpretation and response towards varied situations, and Section 4 is the provision for dialogue and accountability through declaration of incompatibility. However, both parties possess certain shortcomings that deserve reflection, specifically the overreach into the decision-making role of the judiciary and the absence of a remedial power. The sound relationship between Sections 3 and 4 contributes to the shielding of human rights protection, but specific problems could emerge when enacting this connection. Moving into the future gives leverage to change so that the integration of these areas could get better and stronger safety in human rights of the UK can be built.
Bibliography
- Aileen Kavanagh, What’s so weak about “weak-form review”? The case of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 13, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 1008–1039, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov062
- Commission on a Bill of Rights, ‘A UK Bill of Rights? The Choice Before us’ (2012) (available online at http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr), 8-39
- M Amos, ‘Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?’ (2009) 72 MLR 883
- Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court by Brice Dickson
- A Horne and L Maer, ‘From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?’ in A Horne, G Drewry and D Oliver (eds), Parliament and the Law (Hart 2013) 251
write