2001Unpublished venueRequires access

The Unbalanced Constitution

Keith Ewing

Open publisher page 46 citations

Abstract

Abstract An attempt has been made by corporate interests in the United Kingdom to capture the Human Rights Act 1998, whose importance for commercial practice was quickly identified by city solicitors representing business clients. We find a commitment to social rights and the principle of solidarity by the architects of the new European constitution. But does it matter that there is no such reference in the British constitution or that the incorporation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law is not balanced by the incorporation of social rights? This chapter shows that it does and argues that by dividing the indivisible there is a danger paradoxically of both undermining and diminishing the human rights of the many, at the expense of the human rights of the few. There was no priority in the British constitution for civil and political rights over social and economic rights. Priority was accorded to legislation at the expense of the common law.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract An attempt has been made by corporate interests in the United Kingdom to capture the Human Rights Act 1998, whose importance for commercial practice was quickly identified by city solicitors representing business clients. We find a commitment to social rights and the principle of solidarity by the architects of the new European constitution. But does it matter that there is no such reference in the British constitution or that the incorporation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law is not balanced by the incorporation of social rights? This chapter shows that it does and argues that by dividing the indivisible there is a danger paradoxically of both undermining and diminishing the human rights of the many, at the expense of the human rights of the few. There was no priority in the British constitution for civil and political rights over social and economic rights. Priority was accorded to legislation at the expense of the common law.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 46 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract An attempt has been made by corporate interests in the United Kingdom to capture the Human Rights Act 1998, whose importance for commercial practice was quickly identified by city solicitors representing business clients. We find a commitment to social rights and the principle of solidarity by the architects of the new European constitution. But does it matter that there is no such reference in the British constitution or that the incorporation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law is not balanced by the incorporation of social rights? This chapter shows that it does and argues that by dividing the indivisible there is a danger paradoxically of both undermining and diminishing the human rights of the many, at the expense of the human rights of the few. There was no priority in the British constitution for civil and political rights over social and economic rights. Priority was accorded to legislation at the expense of the common law.

Key concepts: Constitution, Human rights, Convention, Political science, Law, Solidarity, Ex post facto law, Fundamental rights

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Unbalanced Constitution — Research Paper | ScholarLens