民主国家,专制方法:联合王国的人权法改革

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Merris Amos
{"title":"民主国家,专制方法:联合王国的人权法改革","authors":"Merris Amos","doi":"10.1017/s0020589323000441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>On 22 June 2022 the Bill of Rights Bill to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced to the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament. Just over a year later, it was withdrawn. This was not a minor update, as claimed by the Conservative government, but a wholesale revision of a fundamental feature of UK constitutional arrangements. Given that the UK has no codified constitution, it is not out of the ordinary for constitutional change to proceed via ordinary Act of Parliament. But what was unusual was the informal methods used by the government in its attempt to push through its bill of rights. Searching for a word or phrase to capture what happened over this time in the UK is difficult, not only because of the absence of a conventional method for constitutional change. Most scholarship focuses on formal rather than informal processes for amendment. The purpose of this article is therefore to make a contribution towards filling this gap by introducing the phrase ‘autocratic method’ to describe a particular method of constitutional change as opposed to its substance. Using existing scholarship, and examples from other States, a preliminary definition and essential features of the autocratic method are set out. Further detail is gained through a study of the attempted replacement of the Human Rights Act. Whilst the Bill of Rights Bill is no longer going ahead, this episode in UK constitutional history contains important lessons not just for the UK but for any State embarking on a process of constitutional change.</p>","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DEMOCRATIC STATE, AUTOCRATIC METHOD: THE REFORM OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN THE UNITED KINGDOM\",\"authors\":\"Merris Amos\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0020589323000441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>On 22 June 2022 the Bill of Rights Bill to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced to the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament. Just over a year later, it was withdrawn. This was not a minor update, as claimed by the Conservative government, but a wholesale revision of a fundamental feature of UK constitutional arrangements. Given that the UK has no codified constitution, it is not out of the ordinary for constitutional change to proceed via ordinary Act of Parliament. But what was unusual was the informal methods used by the government in its attempt to push through its bill of rights. Searching for a word or phrase to capture what happened over this time in the UK is difficult, not only because of the absence of a conventional method for constitutional change. Most scholarship focuses on formal rather than informal processes for amendment. The purpose of this article is therefore to make a contribution towards filling this gap by introducing the phrase ‘autocratic method’ to describe a particular method of constitutional change as opposed to its substance. Using existing scholarship, and examples from other States, a preliminary definition and essential features of the autocratic method are set out. Further detail is gained through a study of the attempted replacement of the Human Rights Act. Whilst the Bill of Rights Bill is no longer going ahead, this episode in UK constitutional history contains important lessons not just for the UK but for any State embarking on a process of constitutional change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000441\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022 年 6 月 22 日,取代 1998 年《人权法》的《权利法案》提交给英国议会。仅仅一年多之后,该法案被撤回。这并非如保守党政府所声称的那样只是一次小的更新,而是对英国宪法安排的一个基本特征的全面修订。鉴于英国没有成文宪法,通过普通议会法案进行宪法修改并非不寻常。但不同寻常的是,政府在试图通过权利法案时使用了非正式的方法。寻找一个词或短语来概括这段时间在英国发生的事情是很困难的,这不仅是因为缺乏一种常规的宪法变革方法。大多数学术研究侧重于正式而非非正式的修改程序。因此,本文旨在通过引入 "专制方法 "这一短语来描述宪法变革的特定方法而非其实质,从而为填补这一空白做出贡献。本文利用现有的学术研究和其他国家的实例,提出了专制方法的初步定义和基本特征。通过对试图取代《人权法案》的研究,我们获得了更多细节。虽然《权利法案》不再继续实施,但英国宪法史上的这一插曲不仅对英国,而且对任何开始宪法变革进程的国家都具有重要的借鉴意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DEMOCRATIC STATE, AUTOCRATIC METHOD: THE REFORM OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

On 22 June 2022 the Bill of Rights Bill to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced to the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament. Just over a year later, it was withdrawn. This was not a minor update, as claimed by the Conservative government, but a wholesale revision of a fundamental feature of UK constitutional arrangements. Given that the UK has no codified constitution, it is not out of the ordinary for constitutional change to proceed via ordinary Act of Parliament. But what was unusual was the informal methods used by the government in its attempt to push through its bill of rights. Searching for a word or phrase to capture what happened over this time in the UK is difficult, not only because of the absence of a conventional method for constitutional change. Most scholarship focuses on formal rather than informal processes for amendment. The purpose of this article is therefore to make a contribution towards filling this gap by introducing the phrase ‘autocratic method’ to describe a particular method of constitutional change as opposed to its substance. Using existing scholarship, and examples from other States, a preliminary definition and essential features of the autocratic method are set out. Further detail is gained through a study of the attempted replacement of the Human Rights Act. Whilst the Bill of Rights Bill is no longer going ahead, this episode in UK constitutional history contains important lessons not just for the UK but for any State embarking on a process of constitutional change.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信