Human Rights Controversies

Many countries confront similar human rights controversies, but despite the claimed universality of human rights values, they are not always resolved in the same way. Why? What role do local legal conditions play? More specifically, does the domestic 'legal form' of human rights have a significant impact on the processes and outcomes of law reform and policy debates on controversial issues? Is human rights discourse a more potent force in a country where rights are constitutionally entrenched, compared to a country where there is a tradition of respect for underlying human rights values, but where no bill of rights has been enacted? Comparative socio-legal examination of three recent controversies - double jeopardy reform, recognition of same-sex relationships and the operation of hate speech laws - in fours countries - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom - provides a foundation for offering answers to these questions.
The case studies examined in this book suggest that the local design of legal institutions and procedures for the injection of human rights values into legal decision-making processes can have a powerful effect on the handling of controversies and the extent to which human rights are enjoyed in practice, but this effect varies depending on the nature of the human rights in issue. 'Legal form' is best understood as both a part of the broader legal cultures of local politico-legal environments with respect to human rights, and as a force for shaping those environments.