UK’s Human Rights Act sparks fierce debate over judicial power and democracy
The Human Rights Act 1998 has long been a point of debate in the UK, particularly over its impact on parliamentary sovereignty. Critics claim that sections 3 and 4 of the Act give judges too much influence, potentially weakening Parliament’s authority. Supporters, however, argue that the system maintains a balance by keeping final decisions in the hands of elected lawmakers.
The Act was designed to bring the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, allowing courts to rule directly on human rights cases. Section 3 requires judges to interpret legislation in a way that aligns with Convention rights, which some argue gives them too much power to reshape laws passed by Parliament. Section 4, meanwhile, lets courts issue declarations of incompatibility when laws clash with human rights—but these declarations do not strike down legislation.
Critics say these provisions pressure Parliament into changing laws, undermining its supremacy. Yet, supporters point to dialogue theory, which suggests that section 3 creates a conversation between judges and lawmakers, with Parliament always having the final say. The Act’s framework also limits judicial power, encouraging restraint and leaving legislative authority intact.
Reform proposals now aim to reduce judicial interpretive power and lessen reliance on rulings from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Opponents warn that such changes could weaken accountability and legal clarity. Similar concerns have been raised in Germany, where human rights groups like Amnesty International Germany and Human Rights Watch Germany have criticised past attempts to reform or repeal the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. Their joint position papers from 2022 and 2023 argue that such reforms would reduce legal certainty, transparency, and access to justice.
The Human Rights Act has strengthened the judiciary’s role in protecting rights but still leaves Parliament with ultimate control. Declarations of incompatibility do not force lawmakers to act, and courts must exercise restraint in interpreting laws. The ongoing debate reflects broader questions about balancing judicial oversight with legislative authority.
