A critique of radical approaches to rights-consistent statutory interpretation

Ekins, Richard (2003) A critique of radical approaches to rights-consistent statutory interpretation. European Human Rights Law Review, 2003 6: 641-650.

Author Ekins, Richard
Title A critique of radical approaches to rights-consistent statutory interpretation
Journal name European Human Rights Law Review   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1361-1526
Publication date 2003
Sub-type Article (original research)
Open Access Status
Volume 2003
Issue 6
Start page 641
End page 650
Total pages 10
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher Sweet & Maxwell
Language eng
Formatted abstract
This article critiques two radical approaches to rights-consistent statutory interpretation under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK). It begins by arguing that the concept of legislative intent necessarily places limits on the scope of rights-consitent interpretation. It goes on to contend that the radical approaches erroneously assume that rights adjudication is determinate and that the point of the HRA is to ensure legislation conforms to the judicial view of rights. This analysis underpins the argument that both radical approaches ought to be rejected because the first ('de facto entrenchment') seeks to build an unconvincing theory of legislative intent, while the second ('semantic opportunism') disregards the importance of intent altogether.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Unknown

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: TC Beirne School of Law Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 16 Jul 2014, 16:23:59 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of T.C. Beirne School of Law