Human Rights - Research Paper Example

?Introduction The protection of liberty is one which is based on basic human rights that are to be practiced legally and within society. However, challenges are often present in terms of defining liberty, understanding the attributes which it should carry and with the creation of boundaries of what liberty means or does not mean. When examining the basic concept of liberty as a right in various countries, it can be seen that different perspectives are initialized, specifically in relation to the executive powers which exist. While the ideology of liberty is noted as a main power within society, there are questions of the protection of liberty, what this means according to society and what powers should be demonstrated with the protection which every human believes is deserved in a given circumstance. Protection of Liberty Against Executive Power in UK The constitutional right of liberty as an executive power in the UK carries the foundation of offering security and protection of freedom. This is expressed through The National Council for Civil Liberties, specifically which promotes human rights while creating better understanding of the liberties that are required in the UK. The committee that has been created in the UK is based on the Public Bodies Bill, which states that there is a fundamental right of every citizen to have liberty and protection of this liberty. The Bill that has been passed combines this with the fundamental right of every individual to have liberty and equal rights in any given circumstance, specifically which is supposed to comply with human rights standards that are within the UK1. The protection of liberty that is now rising in the UK is one which questions the executive powers and the expectations of the new problems within society. The opposing viewpoints which are arising with the Constitutional right, expectations of basic human standards and the creation of the Public Bodies Bill has also created questions of what the limitations of power should be2. The main conflict is based on the differences between security and liberty as well as liberty that oppose equality. The security measures which arise often create a sense of protection of human rights that comes from avoiding conflict and creating security measures for better monitoring of different public areas. However, there are many that believe this takes away freedom and liberty, specifically pertaining to privacy and the ability for individuals to have a sense of freedom while in society. The ideology of security is then one which arises because of the belief that executive powers to watch others takes away the sense of liberty and freedom3. The ideology of limited protection because of security and equality within the UK is followed by executive powers which show how protection of liberty becomes conflicting. Currently, the UK has a separation of powers by the powers of the Constitution, executive office forces, executive tools and agreements, legislation which supports different changes and marginalized actions of the legislative and judicial branches of the government. These five separations of powers also create conflicts with the main provisions of liberty and what this means when dividing the power among different sources. The question of balancing power with the different definitions of liberty, combined with the new needs in society, then combine with a sense of imbalance for the protection of liberty4. Even though there are divisions of power and expectations with security and human rights, there are still ways in which the protection of liberty works against the executive powers as a general constitutional right in the UK. The Constitutional culture is one of the aspects which continue to protect rights. If there is a high amount of security or different powers that create a different definition of liberty, then one can guarantee Constitutional rights toward the right of liberty5. The main values and principles which are associated with liberty can then be applied. A conflict which arises is based on the executive powers is from the vague aspects of the Constitution. While the document guarantees a right to protection of liberty, this can easily change according to the situation which one is in and often alters according to the balancing powers that are displayed. The normative attitude toward the Constitution and the culture which surrounds this, however, is able to balance the powers and create a different level of protection from other executive powers6. The protection of liberty in the Constitution is one which is questioned, specifically because other powers and executive authorities can counterbalance this according to situation. An example of this is with New Labour Laws, which have led to the Human Rights Act by the state. The HRA is based on civil liberties but also create powers that belong to the government and authorities that don’t offer equal balance of executive laws. The protection of liberties which begins to alter is based on human rights and the rule of law that applies. These applications counterbalance the laws and new terms and conditions which apply. The rule of law is one which is based on the Constitution having the first rule of law while other executive powers balance with this. The human rights which follow are then based on the decisions of the laws to act in accordance to these laws. Police officers, courts and others are then susceptible to the Constitutional executive power first while the freedom to assembly and to change some of the laws through clauses becomes secondary and has to comply with the protection of freedom7. Protection of Liberty Against Executive Power in USA Similar to the UK, the USA has created protections of liberty against the executive powers by balancing out the power and the laws which exist in the nation. The main problem is based on the security that often takes away from the liberties as well as the powers which counterbalance this. The balance of power with executive decisions further complicates by adding in different powers with state regulations that are in the country. Today, the power of balance is even more important, specifically because of actions which the United States has taken after the attacks against terrorism and 9/11. This main approach is one which is creating several controversies, such as the Homeland Security policies which coincide with the belief in liberty in public areas, as well as other security issues which are violating the privacy and freedom that individuals had in terms of rights within the US. To balance this, there is an approach of balancing the powers at a state and national level so alterations can be made with the security8. The ability to balance powers in the US while protecting liberty is furthered with clauses and regulations, such as the use of Article 2. This began with the case of Marbury v. Madison, which created the appointment powers. The case pointed out that Constitutional laws should be appointed above cases that were related to the state, specifically if a lawyer or other entity represented something that was illegal and was outside of the Constitution. The appointment power is one which states that there should be no conflict of interest between liberty as a Constitutional right and the decisions which are made by executive powers. The main ideology is to control the right of liberty, despite the executive decision that is within the specific case9. The cases which have shown the protection of liberty have been furthered with Constitutional reforms and conventions which define the type of liberties which should be available, despite executive powers. The ability to debate what should be available and giving citizens Constitutional rights that offer room for more Constitutional rights can then question the political and social values within society10. The overall ideology which has been created with the Constitutional rights toward liberty is with the checks and balances which continue to work within the US. One way that this is becoming noted is with the Patriot Act of 2001, which was designed to increase the security that was throughout the US and which was created to measure the safety of citizens. While most noted that the increased security was required, other questions were raised about the liberty that was guaranteed according to the Constitution. The checks and balances of the US come into play, specifically with the security not having the ability to take away the basic liberties of citizens11. In Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004), shows this as hostages were being taken by the US during a time of war. While this particular application was for security, the checks and balances were furthered to create a Surveillance Act (2007), which ensures that the hostages are taken only for wartime efforts and protection while balancing the liberty and security of both sides12. British v. Australia Case Laws in Deprivation of Liberty The deprivation of liberty with Britain and Australia differ because of the checks and balances and the executive powers that are expected in both regions. These human rights differences are also altered according to the time frame and the expectations of security and rights that are available. The case laws that are created are first divided by the executive powers that are in both regions and how these relate to the balances that are within the Constitutional rights and among the executive powers in both countries. The main difference between both countries is based on the separation of powers that is in both realms, specifically which is divided by judicial and executive powers among individuals. For Australia, the liberty is one which is to be maintained by the balance of these and the legislative powers. This is taken a step further in both countries by defining the meaning of executive powers and the role each plays in the need to define liberty and human rights13. The Balance of Powers which have been created in Britain and in Australia are further defined by fundamental changes which have been made between both areas. In Britain, the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1988) began to change the expectations for liberty as a fundamental right. The change was one which was based first on duty based law, which was created with the association of how it was the duty for each individual to practice liberty. This changed to rights based law, meaning that each human has a fundamental right to have a sense of liberty, specifically as a part of the Human Rights Act of 1988. This change in perspective also altered the expectations for legalities. Public authorities in Britain became responsible for safe guarding the human rights of individuals, as opposed to safe guarding the Constitution in terms of liberty. The definition of liberty then began to change as an incorporation of justifying basic human rights that were in society14. The case laws before the human rights act compare to the changes which were made with the human rights as a part of the fundamental liberties which began to be exercised. During this time, the concept of liberty was defined by the Constitutional rights, executive decisions and the checks and balances which were in the government. The approach used, when compared to Australia, made the concept of liberty one which was based on the authorities and powers of the UK15. Australia; however, had maintained the Common Law as a main component of liberty and human rights. According to the Magna Carta and Common Law, individuals held specific powers in the court, specifically because of the notion of liberty and what this meant. The liberty which was granted then offered a due process of law to citizens as well as basic citizen rights to continue to keep liberty, not as law, but instead as a basic right of belonging in Australia16. The due process of law that compares to Constitutional rights changed after the European Convention on human rights, specifically with the decision that liberty was a human right, as opposed to a Constitutional obligation. This began to align with the due process of law of Australia that took place, specifically with the Human Rights Act of 1998 in the UK. In this particular act, there was a change with the ideology of liberty, specifically which altered it from a Constitutional right to a human right17. The convention which took place followed the due process of law which Australia was using in the main system, specifically because there was a guarantee of legal protection for fundamental rights which were a part of the system. By using this system, Australia was able to guarantee protection of human rights while allowing this to be combined with the Bill of Rights. The UK was then able to adapt this as a process that ensured individuals were protected with the legalities under all branches of the executive powers18. The main association that has been created with the Human Rights Act of the UK as well as the Common Law of Australia has also altered perspectives to one which is more similar and mainstreamed with the expectations of rights. The main perspective which is now taken is based on using the human rights as a security measure while protecting rights to create a sense of control and to reduce risk while moving through court proceedings19. The compliance is one that is based on a case – by – case scenario and is ensured by how in tact one is with the laws as well as how this relates to the given scenario. In both the UK and Australia, there is an understanding of the basic human rights as a main protection and type of compliance. However, Australia alters the case by case scenarios with the Common Law so freedom, rights and checks and balances can be expressed in given scenarios. By using this in Australia, there is a greater freedom of legislative power which is used with the court system. This is opposed to the UK, which uses the freedoms for greater liberties of citizens; however, this is based specifically on the Human Rights Act as an expression of the freedom20. An example of these differences can be seen with examples such as the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision that is utilized by the House of Lords. The approach which is taken is first defined by the appeals which take place, either for or against a specific legality or Constitutional right, such as a violation of liberty. The House of Lords is able to take the appeal and create a new rule or work with the problem until there is an understanding of whether the liberty has been denied or not protected. From these decisions, new rules and clauses become applicable to the law, specifically noted as statutory laws. In instances where there is an appeal, the Australian court has the capacity of protecting the rights and liberties of individuals while using a procedure to ensure that there is the least damage done according to various cases21. There are two associations which are taken with the Court of Appeals in Australia, as opposed to the ideologies which are created toward human rights in the UK. The first is that that the regulations in the UK call for a check and balances in terms of liberty and protection22. However, the Court of Appeals is able to have more flexibility in exercising this, specifically because of the precedents and procedures which are taken as well as the expectations which alter according to various cases. The difference between the two is then based on procedures which are taken. While there may be a general agreement about the human rights or violations of liberties, this main aspect with appealing the ideologies of liberty and trying to rebuild what is needed then becomes the main association with the ideology of protection for human rights and for liberties within Australia23. Australian High Court and Principles of Legality The high court that is able to alter the checks and balances according to cases, as well as the principles of legality become controversial because of the associations with limitations of executive power. The first view of this comes from state alterations which can be made within each region, specific to the protection of rights and liberties24. However, most note that the High Court changes the Australian federation by altering the changes within the appeals which are brought to the court and by re-examining the cases with the legalities that are associated with this. The Constitutional role is questioned, as well as the power of the legal balances, specifically because the High Court can change the measures if it seems appropriate, without considering the measures that are a part o the liberties25. The changes with the roles and principles with the High Court and the principles of legality are furthered by executive powers which decide to use the process by mistake, as opposed to looking at the protection of liberties as a general human right or need. While the High Court is meant to protect those who are looking into the procedure as a way of securing liberties, there are also problems which are associated with this. There can often be a misuse or abuse of power which accumulates through the executive powers and the decisions which are made26. There may also be misinterpretations that are based on the guarantee of protection of liberty or in terms of the expectations from rulings that are associated with this. The clear statement principle is one of the outcomes, specifically because statutory interpretation has caused many executive powers to act in the wrong manner, not because of disobedience to the High Court, but instead because of a lack of understanding about the decisions and changes which are made. The principle of legality then becomes questioned because of the flexibility and ability to change the main interpretations27. The interpretations and the expectations that are associated with this flexibility lead to a second gap in the system, specifically because of the question of whether the human rights are being withheld or protected. While most are based on the Constitution as an executive power, there are also extra legal strategies that are required to show that the particular perspective is the right to take in a given instance. The main concept is one which is associated with the needs of a given time and how this associates with past cases28. There is the ability to change interpretations, alter perspectives and beliefs and to create an understanding of what human rights should be at a given time for the legal progression of the country. This attribute is one which holds both strengths and weaknesses. From one perspective, there may be a violation of human rights, especially if misinterpretations occur or if the executive powers use strategy to make the wrong decision. However, the advantage is based on the ability to create a flexible definition that allows human rights to apply to the issues of a given time period while allowing the law to move forward with the social and legal trends as opposed to remaining generalized with basic human rights or constitutional areas of protection29. While there are several misinterpretations that may occur, the concept of the High Court also has advantages, specifically with human rights which may have been violated otherwise. The Common Law is one which is administrated by the principles of legality, specifically with doctrines and techniques which can be used. If international legal obligations or other constraints occur, than the High Court can use the principles which legally apply and change to create a different interpretation of a given case. From this perspective, the legal issues are always considered first as a way to delegate authority. In the perspective of human rights violations, this particular flexibility is required30. International regulations are continuously changing with human rights and exceptional cases become associated with the High Court and the appeals which may occur. The need to continue to protect the liberties of individuals from dynamic and changing perspectives then becomes a main priority that is based on various principles. The traditions that may have hindered the needs, such as human rights, then are able to apply and offer more executive decisions and rulings, as well as needed interpretations31. Conclusion The concept of human rights is one which alters according to the executive powers, processes and the alterations of definition which occur in human bodies. When examining the UK and US system, there is an understanding of human rights as a Constitutional obligation with the associations based on the protection of liberty according to international standards and the Human Rights Acts that both have considered. This differs from Australian law, specifically because of the Common Law that offers flexibility. The House of Lords as well as the High Court are able to demand more flexibility with the case laws and the protection of liberty. From one perspective, this offers more responses to current needs, specifically because of the executive powers that can look at current trends and needs. However, it can also be seen that executive powers can easily become imbalanced or cause difficulties in meeting the defined Constitutional obligations because of misinterpretations or strategic needs. The question which is raised is based on the understanding of executive powers and how it relates to the protection of liberty, specifically which alters according to the processes held by specific judicial systems and the power that is given to each. Mini – Paper The question raised between New Zealand Judge Lord Cooke and Michael Kirby based on the Sovereignty of Parliament included a different understanding of how much power Parliament should exercise. In the case of Cooke, there was a belief in the Common Law being exercised by Parliament for greater changes in Australia. He points out cases such as Salmon v. Salmon and Company and Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions. In both instances, Cooke states that Parliament is able to make turning points in the Common Law that work more effectively for the rights of those in the country. In the first instance, the powers exercised were able to assist with company direction and with shareholders. In the second instance, the executive decision was found to be one which was not a large attribute and was reversed by the court. The examples given by Cooke show that there is a balance of powers and an understanding that Parliament is able to give turning points and direction with the powers while keeping balance with the court powers if an appeal does take place32. The remedy for Parliamentary excess was based on the natural components of Common Law in going back to the courts for appeal. This particular viewpoint was opposed by Kirby with the belief that judicial activism took over the will to keep checks and balances. By having a sense of Common Law, the Parliamentary decisions could easily be altered according to political agendas. This was done in a reference to the Constitution; however, the basic rights could easily be ignored to use the Common Law in place of the basic needs of individuals. The example which Kirby gives is based on the sense of activism that is in various countries. When activism arises, courts tend to change the procedures or outcomes, specifically with realization of other rights or perspectives which may have been violated. Kirby states that these viewpoints as well as problems in terms of political agendas, could easily alter the final decisions. Kirby’s suggestion was based on the concept of complete legalism in which Parliament was first required to look at the legalities of a situation, than balance this with activism or other rulings which pertained more directly to the given situation33. References Aldridge, Peter. 1984. “Precedent in the Court of Appeal – Another View.” 1984 47 (2), The Modern Law Review, 187-200. Alexy, R. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010). Australia T. “Human Rights Committee.” 1994, 64 (3) University Law Journal, 1-16. Clark, David. “The Icon of Liberty: The Status and Role of Magna Carta in Australian and New Zealand Law.” 2000, 24, Melbourne University Law Review, 866-893. Con Doussa, J. 2006. “Reconciling Human Rights and Counter – Terrorism – A Crucial Challenge.” 2006 81 (2), James Cook University Law Review, 517-532. Cooke, Robin. “The Road Ahead for Common Law.” 2004, 53, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 273-286. Dyzenhaus, David, Murray Hunt, Michael Taggart. “The Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: Internationalization as Constitutionalization.” 2001, 1, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 5-17. Fenwick, Helen. “Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law.” 2010, 37 (4), Journal of Law and Society, 682 -686. French, RS. “The Common Law and the Protection of Human Rights.” 2009, Anglo Australasian Lawyers Society 1-22. Hays, Bradley. “A Place for Interposition? What John Taylor of Caroline and the Embargo Crisis Have to Offer Regarding to the Bush Constitution.” 2008, 67, Midland Law Review, 200-207. Heymann, Philip. “The On/ Off Switch.” 2008, 16, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 55-62. Humpherey – Jenner, M. “Should Common Law Doctrines Dynamically Guide the Interpretation of Statutes?” 2009, 17 (1), Legisprudence, 1-37 Huysmans, J. “Minding Exceptions: The Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy.” 2004. 57 (1), Contemporary Political Theory, 256-312. Jaggers, B. Anti – Terrorism Control Orders in Australia and the United Kingdom: A Comparison. (UK: Routledge, 2008). Jones, Timothy. “Legal Protection for Fundamental Rights and Freedoms: European Lessons from Australia.” 1994, 22, Federal Law Review, 57-62. Kirby, Michael. “Judicial Activism.” 1998, 27, Australian Law Review, 1-17. Lawson, G. “Executive Power of Constitutional Interpretation.” 1995 61 (2), Iowa Law Review, 13-25. Miller, CJ. “Contempt of Court.” 2000, 83 (1), Federal Law Journal, 32-47 Moens, Alexander, Martin Collacott. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States (New York: Fraser Institute 2009). Murkens, Jo. “The Quest for Constitutionalism in UK Public Law Discourse.” 2009, 29 (3), Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Neocleous, Mark. “Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a Critique of Security Politics.” 2006, 6 Contemporary Political Theory, 131-149. O’Keefe, R. Universal Jurisdiction. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2004). Robinson, Rachel, Sophie Farthing. “Liberty’s Second Reading Briefing on the Public Bodies Bill in the House of Commons.” 2011 Liberty, 1-9. Ruck, Mary. “European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” 2011. Byrom Street Chambers. Sadurski, Wojciech. “It All Comes Out in the End: Judicial Rhetorics and the Strategy of Reassurance.” 1987 7 (2), Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 258-278. Selway, Bradley, John Williams. ‘The High Court and Australian Federalism.” 2005 35 (3) Publius, 467-488. Spigelman, JJ. “The Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle.” 2005, 79, Australian Law Journal, 769-772. Stewart, A. Work Choices: What the High Court Said. (UK: Routledge, 2007). Weintraub, Russell. “Choice of Law for Quantification of Damages: A Judgment of the House of Lords Makes a Bad Rule Worse.” 2007, 42, Texas International Law Journal, 311-323. Whitehead, JW. “Forfeiting Enduring Freedom for Homeland Security: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s Anti – Terrorism Initiatives.” 2001, 197 (2), American University Law Review, 15-19. Zadyas, A. “Human Rights and Indefinite Detention.” 2005, 57 (1), International Review of the Red Cross, 16-23. Compulsory Paper The human rights that are guaranteed to aliens and refugees alter because of basic needs that do not match with citizen rights within a given region. A specific representation which questioned the need for human rights and how this applied to refugees was in Couronne v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2008). In this particular case, there was a question of how many rights aliens and refugees should have if they were in habitual residence of the UK but situated with jobs in other regions of the world. The belief in rights was based on the ability to receive social security benefits as others living in their initial residence, specifically because of the residence and work ethic which had been established and which was supporting the region. The main argument followed The European Convention for Human Rights specific to Article 14 and discrimination under the Race Relations Act of 1976. It was found that under these circumstances, it was not unlawful to give jobseekers allowance34. The first question at stake was one which combined domestic and international rights, specifically with refugees and those who were acting on jobs that were situated in other regions of the world. The European Human Rights convention was put at stake, specifically because of several statutes that were attributed to the UK and to the basic human rights of citizens. If this were not followed, then there could be questions from the EU, international treaty laws and the conventions which withheld the concepts of human rights. If the UK were recognized as violating basic human rights, then other issues would begin to rise in terms of what the nature should be when one was a citizen or a refugee either residing in or outside of the UK35. The question that arose with the violation of basic human rights under the international obligations is one which then could create questions of freedoms and fundamental protection which every citizen was bound to receive under the Constitutional rights and human protection that was expected from a given region. If the misinterpretation according to the alien and refugee rights were violated, then it could cause a demonstration of a legal system which was able to reinterpret and change the international laws according to specific interpretations. It would also show misunderstandings about what legal protection was and what it meant to hold specific human rights within a given region. The nature of the rights at an international level would be questioned if the wrong decision were made, either by giving too many rights to those not residing in the same country, or by not giving basic human rights to those in need36. Another risk in this case was based on the Race Relations Act of 1976. This particular act had been a debate through the work force, specifically because diverse races were not guaranteed the same employment or rights within the work area as others. The ideology became problematic in terms of labour relations and the welfare of those living in the country, specifically because of the inability to have fair and equal opportunity to those who were of a different race and working in the same employment within the UK37. In the several years that had worked toward diverse relations and equal opportunity, was a question of how far this should go, specifically with aliens and refugees who desired the same rights. If the wrong decision were made, then the statute that had been carried out in society for equal opportunity and diversity could begin to reverse, with many employers not carrying out with the expectations of the act. The reversal within social standing would then become problematic with the need to continue developing the principles and statutes in the workplace toward diversity and equality38. Not only were these specific applications at stake, but other questions begun to arise with the contentions of the case. The concept of human rights was one which was defined as a constitutional right for liberty and was based on citizens that were able to reside in a specific area. Guarantee of fundamental needs and the ability to receive assistance with living were the human rights that were associated with this. The question which arose was based on how far this should evolve in terms of human rights and citizenship, specifically with marginalized individuals and sub-citizens that were in the region. The fundamental human rights became in question at this level, specifically with the belief that every individual should receive the same benefits as others. If considered from the wrong perspective, the aliens and refugees would become harmed in terms of work space, social status and with implications that were based on a lack of rights within a region. The violation of basic human rights according to citizenship standards were one of the main violations which had to be considered with the case39. From one perspective, the violation of human rights and the problems which could arise in terms of discrimination and social violations were considered. However, the rights in contention and the main issues at stake from the other side were based on the understanding of rights of non – citizens. It was determined that if too many rights were given, this would cause problems that moved outside of basic and fundamental human rights and into deeper issues associated within the area40. The association with this is referred to as precarious citizens, in whom one migrates but is not a lawful citizen of the country. The consequences of this are based on a country questioning who is responsible for the rights of the citizens and what the human development consequences are if too many rights are given from the wrong country. If the development is given from the wrong place, such as in this case, then it can become detrimental to the state, individuals who hold the citizenship and to the country at large. The problem is one which would lead to difficulties in alien and refugee control within a given region41. When looking at the main issues of human rights, it can be seen that there are several perspectives which are associated with this. The case of Couronne shows how the concept of human rights can easily be interpreted from several perspectives, specifically with marginalized cultures or groups that demand or need human rights. If taking the wrong approach, it can lead to a violation of basic rights through discrimination. However, from another angle, a lack of control over citizen needs is created. The debate then becomes one that is associated with the interpretations of executive powers as well as the needs of the country in terms of human rights. References All England Reporter. “On the Application of Couronne and Others v. Crawley Borough Council and Others v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.” 2008, 369, All ER. Blackstone, Tessa, Bhikkhu Parekh, Peter Sanders. Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda. (UK: Routledge, 1996) 22-35. Bosworth, Mary. “Border Controls and the Limits of the Sovereign State.” 2008 17 (2), Social and Legal Studies, 199-215. Dremczewski, A. European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: A Comparative Study. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2009). Janis, Mark, Richard Kay, Anthony Bradley. European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2009). Gibney, Matthew. “Precarious Residents: Migration Control, Membership and the Rights of Non – Citizens.” 2009 10 (2) Human Development Research Paper 19-27. Janis, Mark, Richard Kay, Anthony Bradley. European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2009). McCrudden, C, DJ Smith, C Brown. “Racial Justice at Work: The Enforcement of the Race Relations Act of 1976 in Employment.” 1991 17 (1), Policy Studies Institution, 717-730. Nash, Kate. “Between Citizenship and Human Rights.” 2009 43 (6), Sociology, 1067-1083. Read More