Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.627801
Title: Interpretive provisions in human rights legislation : a comparative analysis
Author: Coxon, Benedict Francis
Awarding Body: University of Oxford
Current Institution: University of Oxford
Date of Award: 2013
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Restricted access.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis considers interpretive provisions in human rights legislation in the United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand and two Australian jurisdictions: the Australian Capital Territory and the State of Victoria. It deals with the relationship between certain common law interpretive principles which protect human rights and the rules under the interpretive provisions. It also considers what effect the interpretive provisions have on the overall approach to statutory interpretation, particularly in terms of their impact on the roles of intention and purpose. One of the themes of the thesis is that it is possible to identify a common methodology for the application of the various interpretive provisions. This is facilitated by an emphasis on the concept of purpose, which is flexible and capable of being identified and applied at higher levels of abstraction than the concept of intention as commonly applied by the courts. Despite this common methodology, the results of attempts at legislative rights-consistent interpretation in the relevant jurisdictions differ. We shall see that the UK courts have taken a broader interpretive approach than have their New Zealand and Australian counterparts. This will be explained by reference to the respective contexts of the human rights legislation in each jurisdiction, particularly in terms of legislative history. It will be argued that the purpose of the UK legislation to provide remedies in domestic courts for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the basis for the UK courts’ approach. The absence of this factor is the primary point of distinction between the UK on the one hand, and New Zealand and Australia on the other, though other issues will be explored. Finally, while as a matter of the interpretation of the UK legislation, and especially of the relevant interpretive provision, the approach of the UK courts is defensible, the significant risk to the principle of legal certainty which it poses will be highlighted.
Supervisor: Vogenauer, Stefan Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.627801  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Law ; Comparative Law ; Constitutional & administrative law ; Human rights ; statutory interpretation
Share: