The Pros And Cons Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
Human rights have always been a universal matter. Universal Declaration of Human Rights assembled these rights. Europe pursues an identical pattern to establish human rights laws suitable to their own citizens.
The construction of the ECHR was made inappropriate due to a breakdown by the EU in granting it to accede into the EC treaty. The idea on the Charter of Fundamental right was to save the EU from the confusion the have created. The EU Charter of Fundamental was completed in 2000, this followed a decision that fundamental rights was set up in a fragmented form across various primary and secondary law provisions .
Therefore, the charter is a binding set of principles that brought and joint all of the personal, civic, political, economic …show more content…
and social rights together, and it protects individuals against actions of state.
Europe established that they were interested to chase this precedent by joining and becoming a part of universal declaration and they were willing to launch their own set of provisions with a summary of human rights policies to be followed and all over Europe and this is known as the European convention of human rights and they also established a specific court to deal with these kind of matters.
However, the formation of charter does not operate in the same way as ECHR. Upon its formation, the Economic Community was formed to accomplish a vision imagined by Jean Monnet, a Frenchman, who had proposed and expected that all Europe show be united under one particular union, a single nation with a single market. He also maintained that 'there is no future for the people of Europe except in union." Not while after, Monnet's idea appeared as a solution towards fixing an economic issue, that of the coal and steel dilemma between Germany and France. Since then, the European Coal and Steel Community was established, a name that perhaps clarifies its purpose of economic success. When the EU’s official formation was based, they were more concerned on the performance and achievement of an economic super power as opposed to upholding basic rights and freedoms.
A lot of the EU's most fundamental treaties and provisions confirm an inflexible conviction in the importance of human rights both internally and externally within the union and foreign policy. This has been mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union which says that 'the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law...' Article 6 claims that the EU were not ignorant where respect and dignity of human life was mentioned in fact quite the opposite, they took issues and problems regarding fundamental rights very seriously. Article (7) they provide a legal instrument with which they may sanction member states who are in constant violation of human rights. The EU was almost clear, when the matter of infringements on basic rights were mentioned they would not lay down under any circumstances. In some circumstances the EU puts fundamental rights ahead of trade relations which could earn a great financial advantages.
The charter does not work in the same way as the ECHR. Charter has sincere effect in the UK, meaning that there is no need to inforce the UK legislation. And it only applied to EU law. The charter clears all the confusions that Human Right have in EU and it assembles fundamental principles from different authorities, for instance, the ECHR, the Universal Declaration and the very last one is the European Court of Justice case law.
The intention of the Charter was to apprehend and pull in all those aspects of basic rights arising from various sources and putting them in a clear, sufficient and comprehensive law. The main problem of these rights was further compounded by the lack of a proper human rights foundation.
The ECJ’s responsibility was to look at all issues and decide whether the community should let the accession of the ECHR into EC law.
The courts held that 'as Community law now stands, the Community has no competence to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.' A lot of logics and reasons were given for this conclusion, the most important one included the fact that under Article 3(b) of the EC Treaty, the nation and the community is to act within the scope and the extension of its capacity as defined by the provisions of the Treaty and nothing else. Moreover, the judges decided to grant the ECHR special community relevant status in previous case law , so this would be the most they would carry on going without being proclaimed legally binding. Craig and De Burca also complained that the ECJ and ECtHR should classify themselves as two separate and different legal entities watching over certain rights that would be relevant to their jurisdiction. In this case, the ECJ looks after the market interests and the application of EC Law while the ECtHR could focus on human rights problems. Previous issues have included differing interpretations on Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (privacy in the
home).
One of the main advantages of the charter is that it contains both rights and principles which are to be treated differently and it incorporates so many years of case law decisions into its articles so it is easier to be identified by different group of people. Without the charter, citizens would be in a very difficult situations and would have difficulties when locating cases and the decisions that form fundamental nature of nation’s rights.
Looking at the case law, it has been proven that the case laws resolved by the ECJ is bizarre and they are not bound by any human rights standards. For instance the case of Stauder is an ideal and excellent example of how unreasonable the courts can be. This case calls for basic right in a law which has not been mentioned at all. There was a lack of human rights within the treaty and also the ECJ acknowledged in its final judgement that the courts would look after `human rights enshrined in the general principles of Community law.' There would be a complicated issue of how the ECJ protects human rights without knowing what exactly these human rights are. The ECJ identified the need to appease critics and thus in the case of International Handelsgesellschaft . The three sources of inspiration for the identification of fundamental rights that have been attempted under EC law by the courts are, the ECHR, International Treaties and the Constitutional traditions of member states.
This experiment of designing a human rights foundation by encompassing these three elements is a resourceful attempt to literally build something out of nothing and it should be said that it would not work.
The construction of the ECHR was made inappropriate due to a breakdown by the EU in granting it to accede into the EC treaty. The idea on the Charter of Fundamental right was to save the EU from the confusion the have created. The EU Charter of Fundamental was completed in 2000, this followed a decision that fundamental rights was set up in a fragmented form across various primary and secondary law provisions .
Therefore, the charter is a binding set of principles that brought and joint all of the personal, civic, political, economic …show more content…
and social rights together, and it protects individuals against actions of state.
Europe established that they were interested to chase this precedent by joining and becoming a part of universal declaration and they were willing to launch their own set of provisions with a summary of human rights policies to be followed and all over Europe and this is known as the European convention of human rights and they also established a specific court to deal with these kind of matters.
However, the formation of charter does not operate in the same way as ECHR. Upon its formation, the Economic Community was formed to accomplish a vision imagined by Jean Monnet, a Frenchman, who had proposed and expected that all Europe show be united under one particular union, a single nation with a single market. He also maintained that 'there is no future for the people of Europe except in union." Not while after, Monnet's idea appeared as a solution towards fixing an economic issue, that of the coal and steel dilemma between Germany and France. Since then, the European Coal and Steel Community was established, a name that perhaps clarifies its purpose of economic success. When the EU’s official formation was based, they were more concerned on the performance and achievement of an economic super power as opposed to upholding basic rights and freedoms.
A lot of the EU's most fundamental treaties and provisions confirm an inflexible conviction in the importance of human rights both internally and externally within the union and foreign policy. This has been mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union which says that 'the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law...' Article 6 claims that the EU were not ignorant where respect and dignity of human life was mentioned in fact quite the opposite, they took issues and problems regarding fundamental rights very seriously. Article (7) they provide a legal instrument with which they may sanction member states who are in constant violation of human rights. The EU was almost clear, when the matter of infringements on basic rights were mentioned they would not lay down under any circumstances. In some circumstances the EU puts fundamental rights ahead of trade relations which could earn a great financial advantages.
The charter does not work in the same way as the ECHR. Charter has sincere effect in the UK, meaning that there is no need to inforce the UK legislation. And it only applied to EU law. The charter clears all the confusions that Human Right have in EU and it assembles fundamental principles from different authorities, for instance, the ECHR, the Universal Declaration and the very last one is the European Court of Justice case law.
The intention of the Charter was to apprehend and pull in all those aspects of basic rights arising from various sources and putting them in a clear, sufficient and comprehensive law. The main problem of these rights was further compounded by the lack of a proper human rights foundation.
The ECJ’s responsibility was to look at all issues and decide whether the community should let the accession of the ECHR into EC law.
The courts held that 'as Community law now stands, the Community has no competence to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.' A lot of logics and reasons were given for this conclusion, the most important one included the fact that under Article 3(b) of the EC Treaty, the nation and the community is to act within the scope and the extension of its capacity as defined by the provisions of the Treaty and nothing else. Moreover, the judges decided to grant the ECHR special community relevant status in previous case law , so this would be the most they would carry on going without being proclaimed legally binding. Craig and De Burca also complained that the ECJ and ECtHR should classify themselves as two separate and different legal entities watching over certain rights that would be relevant to their jurisdiction. In this case, the ECJ looks after the market interests and the application of EC Law while the ECtHR could focus on human rights problems. Previous issues have included differing interpretations on Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (privacy in the
home).
One of the main advantages of the charter is that it contains both rights and principles which are to be treated differently and it incorporates so many years of case law decisions into its articles so it is easier to be identified by different group of people. Without the charter, citizens would be in a very difficult situations and would have difficulties when locating cases and the decisions that form fundamental nature of nation’s rights.
Looking at the case law, it has been proven that the case laws resolved by the ECJ is bizarre and they are not bound by any human rights standards. For instance the case of Stauder is an ideal and excellent example of how unreasonable the courts can be. This case calls for basic right in a law which has not been mentioned at all. There was a lack of human rights within the treaty and also the ECJ acknowledged in its final judgement that the courts would look after `human rights enshrined in the general principles of Community law.' There would be a complicated issue of how the ECJ protects human rights without knowing what exactly these human rights are. The ECJ identified the need to appease critics and thus in the case of International Handelsgesellschaft . The three sources of inspiration for the identification of fundamental rights that have been attempted under EC law by the courts are, the ECHR, International Treaties and the Constitutional traditions of member states.
This experiment of designing a human rights foundation by encompassing these three elements is a resourceful attempt to literally build something out of nothing and it should be said that it would not work.