Human Rights
actually disagrees with domestic court rulings and to which it actually limits aspects of national security are both often exaggerated. For instance, in 2014, of 1,243 cases were brought before the European Court, the U.K. only lost four. 9 Although this does raise some issues around the idea that the European Court provides an unnecessary oversight, owing to the magnitude of cases that do not actually disagree with domestic court decisions but that nevertheless waste British legal resources, this can also be dismissed inmuch the same way as, although the number of cases that are denied are small, the potential ramifications that these decisions may have otherwise had on our democratic integrity are still potentially very destructive. The extent to which the European Court is capable of bulldozing the interests of national security is also questionable, as derogations from certain Articles are allowed, under Article 15 of the Convention, in times of war or national emergency, so long as it deemed as it ‘strictly required by the exigencies of the situation’. This is something that has been used by the United Kingdom in the past as, in response to the Chahal judgment, they decided to opt out of Article 5 of the Convention in order to allow them to detain foreign nationals that could otherwise not be deported. 10 Although these powers have since been reined in, as the opt-out of Article 5 was judged in the House of Lords to have not fulfilled the necessary conditions of Article 15, they still highlight the potential that the British government has to make human rights sacrifices, so long as they are required, in order to bolster national security. The third issue to consider is, regardless of the benefits that the European Court may have, to what extent it is valid for the British parliament, which draws its power from the democratic support of the British public, to be held accountable by this external body, which has not been elected by the British public and but appointed by the Council of Europe, which comprises 47 member states. Although Britain, as a member of this council, does of course have some say in these decisions, those who argue for greater accountability would say that this influence is not enough for the decision of the Court to adequately reflect the desires of the British population. This is the basis on which democracy is founded, and these concerns should therefore be taken very seriously. However, the importance of the human rights ideal is arguably so great that its maintenance should trump regular democratic process, and, therefore, European Court should not be abandoned by the United Kingdom.
Bibliography
Asthana, A. and Mason, R. (2016) UK must leave European convention on human rights, says May https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human- rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum Bingham, T. (2010) The Rule of Law. London Gearty, C. (2007) ‘Terrorism and Human Rights’ , Government and Opposition 42: 340-362 Honeywood, C. (2016) ‘Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter - Terrorism Laws with Human Rights’, Journal of Strategic Security 9: 28-48 Sumption, J. (2019) Trials of the State. London
9 Honeywood, C. (2016) ‘Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter - Terrorism Laws with Human Rights’, Journal of Strategic Security 9: 28-48 10 Bingham, T. (2010) The Rule of Law. London
146
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software