Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:39:41.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMON LAW RIGHTS: BALANCING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL EXIGENCIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2016

Eirik Bjorge
Get access

Abstract

The protection of human rights through common law principles and values has a greater potential than has been recognised hitherto. First, the adoption at common law of the proportionality test of interferences with rights shows that, when human rights are at issue, the courts will apply an exigent test, allowing interferences only if, amongst other things, a less intrusive measure could not have been used. Secondly, the principle of legality, along with common law constitutionalism as developed recently by the Supreme Court, now means that there is a common law pendant to the rule in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Thirdly, in cases where the protection offered by the Act is displaced by obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, there is no displacement of common law rights, which continue to operate. Fourthly, common law rights are more open to the influences of the customary international law of human rights than are Convention rights. These factors combine to mean that the future of common law rights is an auspicious one.

Keywords

common law rightsautochthonyproportionalityprinciple fundamental to the rule of lawimplied abrogationHuman Rights Act 1998Charter of the United Nationscustomary international law
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 220 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Elliott, M., “Beyond the European Convention: Human Rights and the Common Law” (2015) 68 C.L.P. 85Google Scholar.

2 Sales, P., “Rights and Fundamental Rights in English Law” [2016] C.L.J. 86, 89–102Google Scholar; P. Craig, UK, EU and Global Administrative Law: Foundations and Challenges (Cambridge 2015), 271–85; Elliott, “Beyond the European Convention”; S. Sedley, Lions under the Throne (Cambridge 2015), 193–208; Clayton, R., “The Empire Strikes Back” [2015] P.L. 3Google Scholar; B. Dickson, Human Rights in the UK Supreme Court (Oxford 2013), 20–29; Fordham, M., “Common Law Rights” [2011] J.R. 14Google Scholar; T.R.S. Allan, The Sovereignty of Law: Freedom, Constitution and Common Law (Oxford 2013), 88–132, 168–207; J. Beatson et al., Human Rights: Judicial Protection in the United Kingdom (London 2008), 2–18.

3 Dickson, ibid., at pp. 20–36, esp. p. 31.

4 E.g. Kennedy v Charity Commission (Secretary of State for Justice and Others Intervening) [2014] UKSC 20; [2014] 2 W.L.R. 808; A. v BBC [2014] UKSC 25; [2014] 2 All E.R. 1037, at [56]–[57], per Lord Reed; R. (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115.

5 Elliott, “Beyond the European Convention”, p. 116.

6 Ibid., at p. 88. See also Clayton, “Empire Strikes Back”; Dickson, Human Rights, pp. 20–29.

7 A. (No. 2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71; [2006] 2 A.C. 221, at [51], per Lord Bingham; Matthew v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] 1 A.C. 433, at [12].

8 R. v Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] A.C. 514, 531; R. (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51; [2004] 1 A.C. 653, at [16].

9 Matadeen & Others v MGC Pointu & Others (Mauritius) [1998] UKPC 9; [1999] 1 A.C. 98, at [8]–[11], per Lord Hoffmann; AXA General Insurance Ltd. v H.M. Advocate [2011] UKSC 46; [2012] 1 A.C. 868, at [97], per Lord Mance.

10 Clayton, “Empire Strikes Back”, p. 12.

11 Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115.

12 Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin.); [2003] Q.B. 151.

13 R. (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324.

14 Craig, UK, EU and Global Administrative Law, p. 272.

15 Ibid., at pp. 273–80.

16 See also Clayton, R., “Smoke and Mirrors: The Human Rights Act and the Impact of the Strasbourg Case Law” [2012] P.L. 639Google Scholar; Bjorge, E., “The Courts and the ECHR: A Principled Approach to the Strasbourg Jurisprudence” [2013] C.L.J. 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See note 4 above.

18 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700. See also Ahmed v H.M. Treasury [2010] UKSC 2; [2010] 2 A.C. 534.

19 See generally T. Poole, Reason of State: Law, Prerogative and Empire (Cambridge 2015), 275–85.

20 R. (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd.) v East Sussex C.C. [2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 348, at [34].

21 Citing R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd.) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23; [2003] 2 A.C. 295.

22 Ahmed [2010] UKSC 2; [2010] 2 A.C. 534.

23 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700, at [12].

24 Ibid., at para. [19].

25 Ibid., at para. [20].

26 See on this Craig, P., “The Nature of Rationality Review” (2013) 66 C.L.P. 131Google Scholar.

27 Manchester City Council v Pinnock (Nos. 1 and 2) [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 A.C. 104.

28 Cumming v Danson [1942] 2 All E.R. 653, 655.

29 Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 A.C. 104, at [56].

30 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700, at [20].

31 R. (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd.) [2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 348, per Lord Hoffmann, at [34].

32 Bank Mellat, at para. [20].

33 Nada v Switzerland (2013) 56 EHRR 18, at [167].

34 Poole, Reason of State; C. McLachlan, Foreign Relations Law (Cambridge 2014).

35 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700, at [22]–[23].

36 A. v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“Belmarsh”) [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 A.C. 68.

37 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700, at [25]; A., ibid., at para. [132].

38 The phrase “proportionality at common law” is taken from Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC; [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1591, at [107], per Lord Sumption.

39 R. (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38; [2015] A.C. 657, at [296], per Lord Reed; R. (on the application of S.G. and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, [2015] W.L.R. 159, at [92], per Lord Reed.

40 R. (on the application of Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C.) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 60; [2015] A.C. 945, at [28]. See also Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115, 131–32, per Lord Hoffmann.

41 A. [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 A.C. 68, at [36], [43].

42 Ibid., at para. [36].

43 Ibid., at para. [43].

44 Ibid., at para. [178].

45 Ibid., at para. [222].

46 See Allan, Sovereignty of Law, 114–19, drawing, in part, on Finnis, J., “Nationality, Alienage and Constitutional Principle” (2007) 123 L.Q.R. 417, 430–35Google Scholar.

47 Montgomery v Lankashire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11; [2015] A.C. 1430, at [80], per Lords Kerr and Reed.

48 Emphasis added.

49 Bjorge, Courts as Faithful Trustees, 109–10.

50 Though, of course, legislation has at times been deleted from the statute book; this was the case with the republican legislation of the Long Parliament, from the period 1640–60, which was removed from the definitive edition of D. Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge 1763): Sedley, Lions under the Throne, pp. 83–84.

51 A. (No. 2) [2005] UKHL 71; [2006] 2 A.C. 221, at [152], per Lord Carswell.

52 You Ask Me, Why (1842), verse iii.

53 Bank Mellat (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] A.C. 700, at [20], per Lord Sumption.

54 Section 3(1) provides: “So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.”

55 Ekins, R. and Sales, P., “Rights-Consistent Interpretation and the Human Rights Act 1998” (2011) 127 L.Q.R. 217Google Scholar.

56 Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 2 A.C. 557, at [30], per Lord Nicholls; Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] 1 A.C. 264, at [24], per Lord Bingham.

57 R. (on the application of Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46; [2003] 1 A.C. 387, at [59], per Lord Steyn; Ekins and Sales, “Rights-Consistent Interpretation”, pp. 230–32.

58 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] A.C. 295, 366.

59 Craig, P., “Constitutional and Non-Constitutional Review” (2001) 54 C.L.P. 147Google Scholar, 166; R. (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] A.C. 1787, at [56]–[59], per Lord Neuberger.

60 Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115, 131.

61 Laws, J., “Constitutional Guarantees” (2008) 29 S.L.R. 1Google Scholar, 8.

62 R. (on the application of Evans) [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] A.C. 1787, at [56]–[58], [90], per Lord Neuberger.

63 Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115, 132; R. (Wilkinson) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2005] UKHL 30; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1718, at [17]. See also Ghaidan [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 2 A.C. 557, at [104], per Lord Rodger; Allan, Sovereignty of Law, 168–69.

64 Sales, “Rights and Fundamental Rights”, p. 99.

65 Ibid., at p. 92.

66 E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, 17th ed. (London 1817), 200.

67 E.g. Black-Clawson International Ltd. v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A.G. [1975] A.C. 591, 614, per Lord Reid; London Borough of Islington v UCKAC & Another [2006] EWCA Civ 340; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1303, at [28], per Dyson L.J.; Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network S.L. [2008] UKHL 19; [2008] 1 A.C. 1174, at [130], per Lord Mance.

68 R. (on the application of Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 A.C. 692, at [75].

69 Duport Steels Ltd. v Sirs [1980] 1 W.L.R. 142, 157B; see also p. 169, per Lord Scarman.

70 Re G. (Adoption: Unmarried Couple) [2008] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 A.C. 173, at [48], per Lord Hope.

71 E.g. R. (J.S.) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16; [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1449, at [92]–[93], per Lord Reed.

72 Cf. e.g. Moohan v The Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67; [2014] W.L.R. 544, at [35], per Lord Hodge.

73 Kellogg, F.R., “Law, Morals and Justice Holmes” (1986) 69 Judicature 214Google Scholar, 217.

74 Clayton, “Empire Strikes Back”, p. 12.

75 Douglas & Others v Hello! Ltd. [2001] Q.B. 967; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 992, 997, per Sedley L.J.

76 Ex parte Simms [2000] 2 A.C. 115.

77 Thoburn [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin.); [2003] Q.B. 151.

78 R. (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) [2014] UKSC 3; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324.

79 Laws, “Constitutional Guarantees”, p. 8.

80 Craig, P., “Constitutionalising Constitutional Law: HS2” [2014] P.L. 373Google Scholar, 387.

81 R. (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) [2014] UKSC 3; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324.

82 Ibid., at para. [207], per Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance.

83 R. [2014] UKSC 60; [2015] A.C. 945, at [28], per Lord Sumption; see notes 39–40 above.

84 Thoburn [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin.); [2003] Q.B. 151.

85 Ibid., at para. [63]; Craig, “Constitutionalising Constitutional Law”, p. 386.

86 R. v Cheltenham Commissioners (1841) 1 Q.B. 467, 474, per Lord Denman C.J.

87 Anisminic Ltd. v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147, 170, per Lord Reid.

88 R. (on the application of Evans) [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] A.C. 1787, at [51]–[59], per Lord Neuberger; Allan, T.R.S., “Law, Democracy, and Constitutionalism: Reflections on Evans v Attorney General” [2016] C.L.J. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Thoburn [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin.); [2003] Q.B. 151, at [63]; Craig, “Constitutionalising Constitutional Law”, p. 386.

90 R. (on the application of Anderson) [2002] UKHL 46; [2003] 1 A.C. 387, at [59], per Lord Steyn.

91 Elettronica Sicula SpA. (ELSI) I.C.J. Rep. 1989 p. 15, 42, at [50] (“no doubt that the parties to a treaty can therein either agree that the local remedies rules shall not apply to claims based on alleged breaches of that treaty; or confirm that it shall apply. Yet the Chamber finds itself unable to accept that an important principle of customary international law should be held to have been tacitly dispensed with, in the absence of any words making clear an intention to do so”); O'Keefe, R., “Public international law” (2011) 81 B.Y.I.L. 339Google Scholar, 402.

92 Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder P.C.I.J. Series A No. 23 (1929), p. 20 (“it would hardly be justifiable to deduce from a somewhat ill-chosen expression [contained in a treaty] an intention to derogate from a rule of international law so important as that relating to the ratification of conventions”).

93 Al-Jedda v United Kingdom (2011) 147 I.L.R. 107; (2011) 53 EHRR 23.

94 Nada (2013) 56 EHRR 18.

95 Andenas, M. and Bjorge, E., “Human Rights and Acts by Troops Abroad” (2012) 18 E.P.L. 473, 485–87Google Scholar; R. Kolb, The Law of Treaties (Cheltenham 2016), 184.

96 Al-Jedda (2011) 147 I.L.R. 107; (2011) 53 EHRR 23, at [102].

97 Nada (2013) 56 EHRR 18.

98 See further Kolb, R., “L'article 103 de la Charte des Nations Unies” (2013) 367 Hague Recueil 9, 116–44Google Scholar.

99 26 June 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119.

100 Crawford, J., “Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law” (2013) 365 Hague Recueil 9, 302Google Scholar.

101 Ibid., at pp. 311–14.

102 E.g. R. (Global Witness) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 14 September 2010, unreported (Q.B.) (Sales J.), p. 2, para. 1(c); Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 758; [2011] Q.B. 773; Al-Waheed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 2714 (Q.B.); [2014] EWHC 2714.

103 Al-Jedda v Secretary of Defence [2007] UKHL 58; [2008] 1 A.C.

104 J. Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge 2013), 200–02.

105 Al-Jedda [2007] UKHL 58; [2008] 1 A.C., at [4], [155], per Lord Bingham.

106 Ahmed [2010] UKSC 2; [2010] 2 A.C. 534; Sedley, Lions under the Throne, p. 111; McLachlan, Foreign Relations Law, p. 109; Johnston, A. and Nanopoulos, E., “The New UK Supreme Court, the Separation of Powers and Anti-Terrorism Measures” [2010] C.L.J. 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Ahmed, ibid., at para. [106], per Lord Phillips; at para. [184], per Lord Rodger; at para.[238], per Lord Mance.

108 Sedley, Lions under the Throne, p. 111.

109 Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006.

110 Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006.

111 S.C. Res. 1267 (15 October 1999).

112 Ahmed [2010] UKSC 2; [2010] 2 A.C. 534, at [44], per Lord Hope.

113 Ibid., at para. [45].

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid., at para. [61].

116 H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law (New York 1952), p. 188 (which explains that general international law means customary international law).

117 R. v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1) [2000] 1 A.C. 61, 89–90, per Lord Lloyd; R. v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 A.C. 147, 276, per Lord Millett; Beatson et al., Human Rights, pp. 18–19; cf. the more cautious model set out in Sales, P. and Clement, J., “International Law in Domestic Courts: The Developing Framework” (2008) 124 L.Q.R. 388Google Scholar.

118 Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69; [2015] 3 W.L.R. 1665, at [150], per Lord Mance.

119 Ibid., at para. [151], per Lord Mance.

120 Ibid., at para. [151].

121 E.g. R. (Osborn) [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115, at [57], per Lord Reed.

122 Beatson et al., Human Rights, p. 18.

123 Article 38(1)(b), Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119.

124 Tomka, P., “Custom and the International Court of Justice” (2013) 12 L.P.I.C.T. 195Google Scholar, 196.

125 Ibid.

126 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, I.C.J. Rep. 1986, 93–5, at [175]–[177].

127 Biloune v Ghana (1989) 95 I.L.R. 183, 203, per Judge Schwebel, President; Wallace; Leigh, Arbitrators.

128 ACSYNGO v Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (1986) 82 I.L.R. 127, 130–37.

129 Service of Summons in Criminal Proceedings (1969) 38 I.L.R. 133, 135.

130 Basic Right to Marry Case (1971) 72 I.L.R. 295, 298.

131 Judgment No. 278 of 1992, at [2].

132 Koowarta v Bjelke-Pedersen (1982) 68 I.L.R. 181, 208–11, 221–24, 235–36.

133 R. Jennings and A. Watts, Oppenheim's International Law, vol. 1, 9th ed. (London 1992), p. 1000.

134 R. (Osborn) [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115, at [55]–[56], per Lord Reed.

135 Gulf of Maine, Judgment I.C.J. Rep. 1984, p. 246, 299, at [111].

136 See however B. Conforti, “National Courts and the International Law of Human Rights” in B. Conforti and F. Francioni (eds.), Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague 1997), 3–4.

137 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1986), at [702(e)].

138 General Comment No. 24: Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant of the Optional Protocols thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, 4 November 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, at [8].

139 6 July 2015, A/HRC/30/37, at [11].

140 Arctic Sunrise (The Netherlands v Russia) Award on the Merits, 14 August 2015, P.C.A. Case No. 2014–02, at [197]–[198].

141 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Congo) I.C.J. Rep. 2010, p. 639, 671, at [87]; noted: Andenas, M., (2011) 60 I.C.L.Q. 810CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bjorge, E., “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo” (2011) 105 A.J.I.L. 534Google Scholar.

142 Ibid.; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran I.C.J. Rep. 1980, p. 3, 42, at [91].

143 E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem, “The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement” in E. Feller et al. (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law (Cambridge 2003), 149; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), The Principle of Non-Refoulement as a Norm of Customary International Law, 31 January 1994, at [3].

144 Ngassam v Republic of Cyprus (2010) 156 I.L.R. 371, 380, at [129].

145 Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 98 I.L.R. 270, at [88].

146 (1994) 4 Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen 601, 601–03.

147 Lauterpacht and Bethlehem, “The Principle of Non-Refoulement”, p. 163.

148 Bolat v Russia (2008) 46 EHRR 18, at [81]–[83]; Lupsa v Romania (2008) 46 EHRR 36, at [54]–[61]; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo I.C.J. Rep. 2010 639, 719, Joint Declaration of Judges Keith and Greenwood; Bjorge, E., “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo” (2011) 105 A.J.I.L. 534, 539–40Google Scholar.

149 Boffolo Case (1903) 10 R.I.A.A. 528, 537.

150 LAFICO v Burundi (1991) 96 I.L.R. 279.

151 Ibid., at p. 313.

152 Article 9, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18 April 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95.

153 LAFICO (1991) 96 I.L.R. 279, 313.

154 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo I.C.J. Rep. 2010 639, 663–64, at [65]–[68], and 719, Joint Declaration of Judges Keith and Greenwood; Bjorge, “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo”, pp. 539–40.

155 A. Pellet, “Notes sur la ‘fragmentation’ du droit international: droit des investissement internationaux et droits de l'homme” in Unité et diversité du droit international (The Hague 2014), 777–78.

156 Bank for International Settlements – Partial Dispute with Former Private Shareholders (Partial Award) (2002) 23 R.I.A.A. 153, 231, at [168].

157 Sedco v Iran (1987) 84 I.L.R. 527.

158 Mendelson, M., “Compensation for Expropriation” (1985) 79 A.J.I.L. 414, 415–18Google Scholar; Administrative Decision No. III (1923) 7 R.I.A.A. 64, 65–66; Goldenberg (1928) 2 R.I.A.A. 901, 909; (1928) 4 I.L.R. 542, 545; De Sabla (1934) 28 A.J.I.L. 602, 611–12; Liamco v Libya (1977) 62 I.L.R. 210–11.

159 R. (Osborn) [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115, at [57], per Lord Reed.