Shorter article: Bill of Rights and judicial power - a liberal's quandary

Allan, James

doi:10.1093/ojls/16.2.337

Cited by 18 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term ‘court sceptic’ first appeared in the literature in an article written by the Canadian political scientist, Janet Hiebert (2006) in the Modern Law Review. The phrase was used by the author as a way of summarising sceptical concerns about Bills of Rights and the practice of entrenching individual rights within a constitutional charter subject to strong judicial review that had arisen within a significant body of literature (Griffith 1979; Waldron, 1993, 1998 and 1999; Allan 1996, 2002 and 2008; Tomkins 2005; Bellamy 2007). Hiebert defines a court sceptic as someone who accepts ‘the legitimacy of individual rights but doubt[s] the prudence of giving courts final responsibility for interpreting and resolving political disagreements involving rights, for a range of reasons such as democratic concerns or institutional competence’ (Hiebert 2006, 10).…”

Section: The ‘Court Sceptic’ Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unionists as ‘Court Sceptics’: Exploring Elite-Level Unionist Discourses about a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights

Munce

2012

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most significant characteristics of the peace process in Northern Ireland has been the profound importance attached by a range of academic, political and non-governmental actors to the concept of human rights. However, unionists, more so than other elite-level political actors in Northern Ireland, have expressed scepticism about proposals from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) for a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. This article explores how unionists relied on a ‘court sceptic’ narrative to argue against the Bill of Rights proposals. It argues that at one level unionist reliance on ‘court sceptic’ arguments can be conceived of as instrumental in the sense that it was a mere tactical response to, as unionists argue, the inflation by the NIHRC of their mandate contained in the Good Friday Agreement to devise a Bill of Rights. However, at another level unionists reliance on ‘court sceptic’ arguments can also be traced to their constitutional experience within the British polity.

show abstract

Section: The ‘Court Sceptic’ Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unionists as ‘Court Sceptics’: Exploring Elite-Level Unionist Discourses about a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights

Munce

2012

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The debate, generally speaking, is a cynosure for views concerning the relative merits of judicial discretion in relation to the supreme authority of the legislature; Lord Woolf [30] inter alia arguing that there is no threat to democratic institutions from a Bill of Rights, Butler [7] inter alia arguing the precise opposite. Where these arguments have centred upon the effects upon either judicial discretion or upon the supremacy of democratic institutions, McNamara's study attempts to disentangle cause and effect concerning the degree to which human rights legislation is embedded, and to do this by assessing the differential success of rights claims in the jurisdictions chosen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See for example: Alston[2], Allan[1], Arthurs and Arnold[3], Banakar[4], Butler[7], Epp[10], Keith[18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%