The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention Essay

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention - Essay Example The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an act of Parliament,whose main aim is to ensure that it gives further force the laws concerning human rights,contained in the European Convention.It gives the courts in the United Kingdom the power to deal with those issues,which might cause the citizens of this country to go to the European Court The act makes it illegal for all public bodies to take any actions or decisions which are in contravention to the European Convention on Human Rights. The only exception to this is Parliament,  because it has the legislative capacity in the United Kingdom, and should, therefore, remain sovereign. This Act requires all the courts in the United Kingdom to take into account the decisions which have been made by the court at Strasbourg, as well as to interpret the legislation of Parliament, so that their decisions can be as far as possible in compatibility with the Convention on Human Rights. It is, however, impossible to interpret an Act of Parliament to make it compatible with the provisions of the Convention, because courts are not allowed to override such acts (Kavanagh 2006, 179). Instead, all these courts are allowed to do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility so that the validity of a Parliamentary Act is not affected. One of the reasons why this Act does not affect Parliamentary Acts is because  one of its aims is to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is maintained in the United Kingdom, because it is the supreme legislative body (Feldman 2008, 8). However, the Act still gives individuals the option of taking their cases to the court of Strasbourg if they feel that they are not satisfied by the decisions of the local courts. The main function of the Human Rights Act is to give courts in the United Kingdom the power to deduce legislation so that it is in compatibility with the human rights as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (Hope 1999, 185). This does not mean that the legislation is invalidated, and instead, the amendment of the legislation is permitted, at a fast pace, to ensure that they are in compatibility with the convention. The amendment does not necessarily remain permanent, and, in fact, it has been known for  Courts of Appeal to overturn such court decisions. This Act has to be implemented by all the public bodies in the United Kingdom except for Parliament. The public bodies, which are directly affected by this Act, include the central government as well as the local government. The courts are given wide powers to ensure that they are able to interpret both principal and subsidiary legislation so that they are attuned with the convention. The interpretation of these powers goes far beyond the normal statutory interpretation because they include the interpretation of legislation made in the past as well as those which are to be made in future (Satvinder 2006, 29). This interpretation ensures that the Human Rights Act is protected from being repealed by implicati on. The interpretation has been applied by courts in three different interpretations. The first of these is known as reading in, which refers to the insertion of words into a statute if it is found that there is none which appear in it. Another of these applications is known as reading out, and this refers to words being omitted from a statute if they are found to be in contravention with the European Convention. The last of these is known as reading down which refers to an  interpretation being declared to be in compliance with the convention (Gihring 2000, 203). However, if the courts find it difficult to interpret a statute so that it can be compatible to the European Convention on Human Rights, then they may issues a declaration of incompatibility, and in such cases, only higher courts have the power to make such declarations. Declarations of incompatibility are usually made