header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Vos lays into US human rights approach

News

Bar chairman Geoffrey Vos QC took a swipe at US hypocrisy while staunchly defending the need for the UK to remain a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) in his address to the Bar conference last Saturday.

In his speech, Human Rights—Taking Liberties, Vos warned that Western governments need to get their own houses in order on basic freedoms, before they can start to lecture those in the developing world. “Muslim countries are not impressed with being told that they should adhere to the democratic principles of human rights and the rule of law by a nation that interns people without trial in Guantanamo Bay,” he said.

Although he said the US has a right to balance the need to protect its citizens, against the strictest adherence to the rule of law, it can not claim that it is universally thought that it has got the balance right.
“We need to avoid being guilty of what has been called `rule of law imperialism’, which can do more harm than good,” he added.

Domestically, he welcomed proposals for a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to sit alongside the Human Rights Act 1998. He warned, however, that it would be “an act of calamitous folly for us as a nation to withdraw from the Convention, which I believe underpins our authority in contributing to the world rule of law movement”.

Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll