Should the UK withdraw from the European Convention on human rights Essay

Should the UK withdraw from the European Convention on human rights - Essay Example Sovereignty of the parliament dictates that the parliament has the sole discretion to make and amend laws in the UK. No person or body is recognized by the UK legislation to overrule the law made by the parliament. In this spirit the parliament is seen to be competent to make any laws. Laws that deprive the citizens of their right to property, liberty, voting, and life among others should be seen as valid so long as they have been passed by the parliament. This is done in faith that the parliament can exercise self restraint and only pass laws that are at par with the moral standards. However, this has not been the case always because some politicians have normally put their own selfish interests at the cost of national interests. The ECHR being an international body helps to regulate such offensive or repugnant laws. The citizens of Britain should advocate against their government withdrawal from the convention. This is for the benefit of regulation of the laws that the parliament may pass. The Human Rights Act of 1998 and its Problems The human rights act of 1998 was drafted on the principle of protection of human rights but reconciled with the sovereignty of the state (UK Government, 2012). Under this act, the parliament may make legislations and the courts may not necessarily quash them on the grounds of inconsistency with the European Convention on human rights. In fact, it is only the higher courts that should interpret the legislations and determine their inconsistency. The higher courts may only declare incompatibility where it is very clear. This act was put forward in order to ensure parliamentary sovereignty. ... an Rights Act of 1998 and its Problems The human rights act of 1998 was drafted on the principle of protection of human rights but reconciled with the sovereignty of the state (UK Government, 2012). Under this act, the parliament may make legislations and the courts may not necessarily quash them on the grounds of inconsistency with the European Convention on human rights. In fact, it is only the higher courts that should interpret the legislations and determine their inconsistency. The higher courts may only declare incompatibility where it is very clear. This act was put forward in order to ensure parliamentary sovereignty. However, the enactment of the act has transformed the constitutional environment in which the parliament’s legislative power exists; the legislative powers have been altered. Three features of the act pose problems to its enactment and goes against the ECHR. The first problem is that the act places the power to interpret whether the acts are consistent wi th convention rights in the hands of the judiciary. This greatly alters the process of interpretation of the legislation. This has two implications; it is rare for legislation properly interpreted to go against the human rights norms. The parliament will always use a clearer and precise language if it wishes to abrogate human rights. The use of clear language draws the attention of public and the parliament. The government may put a strong justification of the legislation to win the public support. This legislation may be infringing on the rights of the people but it may escape the eyes of the judiciary which has been given the ultimate power to determine its compatibility with the rights convention (Elliot, 2002). The second problem is that the minister in-charge of the bill should make a