人权改革与“公共职能”

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Erin C. Ferguson
{"title":"人权改革与“公共职能”","authors":"Erin C. Ferguson","doi":"10.3366/elr.2022.0764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In December 2021, the United Kingdom government launched a consultation on its proposals to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a Bill of Rights. 1 F1 Among the twenty-nine questions posed in the consultation paper (CP) is whether the current definition of ‘public authorities’ under s 6 should be maintained, or whether it should be amended to provide ‘more certainty...as to which bodies or functions are covered’.2 F2 In this note, I argue that this is a welcome question, considering that the courts have taken a restrictive approach to interpretation,3 F3 arguably leading to a ‘gap in human rights protection’ as public services are increasingly outsourced to private providers.4 F4 However, the question must be considered alongside the wider proposals for reform, which are unlikely to lead to greater certainty and are in fact likely to weaken human rights protection within the UK.","PeriodicalId":43268,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human Rights Reform and “Functions of a Public Nature”\",\"authors\":\"Erin C. Ferguson\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/elr.2022.0764\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In December 2021, the United Kingdom government launched a consultation on its proposals to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a Bill of Rights. 1 F1 Among the twenty-nine questions posed in the consultation paper (CP) is whether the current definition of ‘public authorities’ under s 6 should be maintained, or whether it should be amended to provide ‘more certainty...as to which bodies or functions are covered’.2 F2 In this note, I argue that this is a welcome question, considering that the courts have taken a restrictive approach to interpretation,3 F3 arguably leading to a ‘gap in human rights protection’ as public services are increasingly outsourced to private providers.4 F4 However, the question must be considered alongside the wider proposals for reform, which are unlikely to lead to greater certainty and are in fact likely to weaken human rights protection within the UK.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Edinburgh Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Edinburgh Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2022.0764\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edinburgh Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2022.0764","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021年12月,英国政府就其用《权利法案》取代1998年《人权法》的提议展开了磋商。1 F1咨询文件提出的29个问题包括,是否应维持第6条下“公共当局”的现行定义,或是否应对其进行修订,以提供“更多确定性……”。。。在本说明中,我认为这是一个受欢迎的问题,考虑到法院对解释采取了限制性的方法,3 F3可以说导致了“人权保护方面的差距”,因为公共服务越来越多地外包给私人提供者。4 F4然而,这个问题必须与更广泛的改革建议一起考虑,这些建议不太可能带来更大的确定性,事实上可能会削弱英国国内的人权保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human Rights Reform and “Functions of a Public Nature”
In December 2021, the United Kingdom government launched a consultation on its proposals to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a Bill of Rights. 1 F1 Among the twenty-nine questions posed in the consultation paper (CP) is whether the current definition of ‘public authorities’ under s 6 should be maintained, or whether it should be amended to provide ‘more certainty...as to which bodies or functions are covered’.2 F2 In this note, I argue that this is a welcome question, considering that the courts have taken a restrictive approach to interpretation,3 F3 arguably leading to a ‘gap in human rights protection’ as public services are increasingly outsourced to private providers.4 F4 However, the question must be considered alongside the wider proposals for reform, which are unlikely to lead to greater certainty and are in fact likely to weaken human rights protection within the UK.
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
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
72
×
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