Beyond disagreement : open remedies in human rights adjudication

256 Pages·2013·0.959 MB·English

by  Aruna Sathanapally

BEYOND DISAGREEMENT
This page intentionally left blank
Beyond Disagreement
Open Remedies in Human Rights Adjudication
ARUNA SATHANAPALLY
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
#A.Sathanapally2012
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2012
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
CrowncopyrightmaterialisreproducedunderClassLicence
NumberC01P0000148withthepermissionofOPSI
andtheQueen’sPrinterforScotland
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
ISBN 978–0–19–966930–1
PrintedinGreatBritainby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,CroydonCR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
Theresearchuponwhichthisbookisbasedwassubstantiallycompletedaspartof
mydoctorateinlawattheUniversityofOxford.IwouldliketothanktheGeneral
Sir John Monash Foundation, the Menzies Foundation, and Balliol College, for
theirgeneroussupportofmyresearch.
My supervisor, Professor Denis Galligan, provided valuablesupport and advice
throughouttheDPhilprocess,andProfessorPaulCraigprovidedhelpfulsupervi-
sionofthechaptersconcerningjudicialtreatmentofdeclarationsofincompatibility
in the UK. I would also like to thank my examiners, Professors Sandra Fredman
and Francesca Klug, and two anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and
thoughtfulcomments.
I am also very grateful for the unswerving support from my parents, and the
excellent advice on drafts provided by Vasudha Sathanapally, Frances Foster-
Thorpe and Frances Voon. Lastly, I cannot thank Glenn Goldsmith enough for
everythinghehasdonetohelpmeseethisworktopublication.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
TableofCases ix
TableofLegislation xiii
Abbreviations xiv
Introduction 1
A. ThePointofDeparture 1
B. TheSubjectofthisBook 3
C. ChapterOverview 7
PART I. TYPOLOGY AND INTERACTIONS
1. OpenRemediesinHumanRightsAdjudication 11
1.A Introduction 11
1.B Weak-FormReviewConsidered 12
1.C TheVarietyofOpenRemedies 16
1.D SharedRationalesforOpenRemediesinHumanRightsAdjudication 25
1.E TheJudicialFunctionandObjectionstoOpenRemedies 28
1.F Conclusion 32
2. TheRoleoftheLegislature 35
2.A Introduction 35
2.B TheNewDialogueScholarship 36
2.C DialogueandDeclarationsofIncompatibility 45
2.D TwoModelsofCourt–LegislatureInteraction 48
2.E SidesteppingLegislativeReality:TwoConcerns 49
3. FromDialoguetoEngagement 57
3.A Introduction 57
3.B ApplyingtheDeliberativeTurninDemocraticTheory 58
3.C InstabilityandCompliance-OrientedRightsReview 67
3.D TheInternationalLegalDimension 74
3.E AFrameworkfortheExaminationofDeclarationsofIncompatibility 77
PART II. DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY
IN THE COURTS
4. TheCriteriaforaDeclarationofIncompatibility 81
4.A Introduction 81
4.B TheArchitectureoftheHRA 82
4.C TheLimitsofSection3HRA 87
4.D AnEffectiveRemedyfortheLitigant 100
4.E Conclusion 102
viii Contents
5. JudicialRestraintandActivismConsidered 105
5.A Introduction 105
5.B ExpositoryJustice 106
5.C TheStrasbourgDimension 115
5.D Conclusion 128
PART III. RESPONSIVE DELIBERATION IN PRACTICE
6. ThePatternofInstitutionalDialogue 131
6.A Introduction 131
6.B StatisticsandPolicy 132
6.C TheLegislature’sRoleafterDeclarationsofIncompatibility 138
6.D AQuickandWillingResponse:2000–2004 142
6.E TheSpaceforPoliticalDecision-Making 148
6.F TheJointCommitteeonHumanRights 156
6.G Conclusion 162
7. RemedialDeliberationintheLegislature 165
7.A Introduction 165
7.B ExploringtheLegislativeCapacityRationale:
TheResponsetoBellinger 166
7.C DifficultieswithLegislativeRemedies:
TheRetrospectivityProblem 172
7.D BringingParliamentAlongorAvoidingDeliberation?
ThePrisonerVotingSaga 180
7.E Conclusion 185
8. BelmarshPrisonersandDialogueoverControlOrders 189
8.A Introduction 189
8.B TheReactiontotheBelmarshPrisonersDecision 190
8.C TheReplyLegislationandLegislativeDeliberation 194
8.D DialogueoverControlOrders 204
8.E Conclusion 209
9. Epilogue 213
9.A TheDominantDynamic 213
9.B PrisonerVotingRevisited 216
9.C ReformingtheInstitutionalSettlementonHumanRights? 221
Conclusion 223
Appendix1:TableofDOIs 229
Appendix2:EmpiricalData 235
Index 237
Table of Cases
Australia
ReJudiciaryandNavigationsActs(1921)29CLR257 ............................... 30
BassvPermanentTrusteeCoLtd(1999)198CLR334 .............................. 31
ReKevinandJennifervAttorney-GeneralfortheCommonwealth[2001]
FamCA1074 ....................................................... 171
RvMomcilovic[2010]VSCA50(VictoriaCourtofAppeal) ........................ 86–7
MomcilovicvTheQueen[2011]HCA34 ................................... 30–1,86
Canada
ReferenceRe:ManitobaLanguageRights[1985]1SCR721 ......................... 21–2
SchachtervCanada[1992]2SCR679 ....................................... 22,29
SauvevCanada(No1)[1993]2SCR438 ...................................... 184
CorbierevCanada[1999]2SCR203........................................... 22
SauvevCanada(No.2)[2002]3S.C.R.519 .................................... 184
EuropeanCourtofHumanRights
HandysidevUnitedKingdom(1976)1EHRR737 ................................ 120
Mathieu-MohinandClerfaytv.Belgium(1987)10EHRR1.......................... 181
CosseyvUnitedKingdom(1990)13EHHR622 .................................. 166
ChahalvUnitedKingdom(1996)23EHRR413.................................. 111
X,Y&ZvUnitedKingdom(1997)24EHRR143 ................................ 166
SheffieldandHorshamvUnitedKingdom(1998)27EHRR163 ....................... 166
RowevUnitedKingdom(2000)30EHRR1 ..................................... 134
GoodwinvUnitedKingdom(2002)35EHRR18 .....................96,166–7,169,178
StaffordvUnitedKingdom(2002)35EHRR1121 ................................ 124
HobbsvUnitedKingdomApplicationNo.63684/00(18June2002) ................... 136
BandLvUnitedKingdomApplicationNo.36536/04(29June2004) .................. 136
HirstvUnitedKingdom(No2)(2006)42EHRR41 .............................. 97–8
UptonvUnitedKingdomApplicationNo.29800/04(11April2006) ................... 136
Burden&BurdenvUnitedKingdom(2007)44EHRR51 ........................... 137
BurdenvUnitedKingdom(2008)47EHRR38 .................................. 137
AvUnitedKingdom(2009)49EHRR29..................................127,205–6
ScoppolavItaly(No3)ApplicationNo.126/05(GC,22May2010) ................... 217
O’DonoghuevUnitedKingdomApplicationNo.34848/07
(14December2010) .................................................. 127
MSSvBelgiumandGreeceApplicationNo.30696/09
(21January2011) .................................................... 112
Al-Khawaja&TaheryvUnitedKingdomApplicationNos.20766/05,
2228/06(GC,15December2011)........................................ 122
EuropeanCourtofJustice
MarleasingSAvLaComercialInternacionaldeAlimentacionSA
(CaseC-106/89)[1990]ECRI-4135 ....................................... 85
NS&OthersvSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment
(CaseC-411/10) ..................................................... 112