Civil Liberties, the European Convention on Human Rights - Essay Example

In Soering v UK the court held that "In interpreting the Convention, regard must be had to its special character as a treaty for the collective enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms Thus, the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that its provisions be interpreted and applied to make its safeguards practical and effective." Judicial interpretation faces evolving challenges due to the advances in information and communication technologies.

The principle of legality is pertinent as interference with Article 8 is to be limited to what is legal. The legal basis for restricting Convention rights has to be identified and established by referring to domestic law. The principle of proportionality constitutes a second key principle and the court while deciding the proportionality of a restriction will take into account whether sufficient relevant reasons sustaining such constraints have been adduced; are less restrictive options available; whether an equitable procedure is adopted in the decision-making process; do safeguards against abuse exist and whether these restrictions obliterate the Convention right.

The extent of the obligation to promote "respect for private life", has been determined by the Strasbourg court by applying the doctrine of margin of appreciation, which accepts that different contracting states have different cultural and societal standards. Hence, it accepts that local authorities in these states are more competent than an international court to decide about the aptness of specific procedures. In March v Belgium3 the court adopted a novel approach to the status of illegitimate children, which had been adopted by most of the contracting states.

The principle of proportionality and the doctrine of margin of appreciation are very important. Security agencies have collectively stated that despite significant disparities in resource implications in servicing the structures set up to deal with dangerous terrorist suspects, these result not from the Human Rights Act, but decisions of the Strasbourg Court in cases such as Chahal4. Further, their conviction is that the courts' approach to Article 8 has not resulted in any difficulties, as interference with the right to privacy has been permitted wherever national security is at stake.

The Human Rights Act provides that a public authority can interfere with an individual's rights if required by a democratic society and that such interference has to be minimal. Hence, this act requires the courts to strike a balance between the individual's rights and the interests of society as a whole.2. Assume that the Department for Constitutional Affairs has established a working group to reflect on the impact the Human Rights Act 1998 has had on the development of human rights law in domestic law.

The working group has commissioned you to prepare a report on the following questions.