The Pros And Cons Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
Human rights have always been a universal matter. Universal Declaration of Human Rights assembled these rights. Europe pursues an identical pattern to establish human rights laws suitable to their own citizens.
The construction of the ECHR was made inappropriate due to a breakdown by the EU in granting it to accede into the EC treaty. The idea on the Charter of Fundamental right was to save the EU from the confusion the have created. The EU Charter of Fundamental was completed in 2000, this followed a decision that fundamental rights was set up in a fragmented form across various primary and secondary law provisions .
Therefore, the charter is a binding set of principles that brought and joint all of the personal, civic, political, economic …show more content…
The courts held that 'as Community law now stands, the Community has no competence to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.' A lot of logics and reasons were given for this conclusion, the most important one included the fact that under Article 3(b) of the EC Treaty, the nation and the community is to act within the scope and the extension of its capacity as defined by the provisions of the Treaty and nothing else. Moreover, the judges decided to grant the ECHR special community relevant status in previous case law , so this would be the most they would carry on going without being proclaimed legally binding. Craig and De Burca also complained that the ECJ and ECtHR should classify themselves as two separate and different legal entities watching over certain rights that would be relevant to their jurisdiction. In this case, the ECJ looks after the market interests and the application of EC Law while the ECtHR could focus on human rights problems. Previous issues have included differing interpretations on Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (privacy in the
The construction of the ECHR was made inappropriate due to a breakdown by the EU in granting it to accede into the EC treaty. The idea on the Charter of Fundamental right was to save the EU from the confusion the have created. The EU Charter of Fundamental was completed in 2000, this followed a decision that fundamental rights was set up in a fragmented form across various primary and secondary law provisions .
Therefore, the charter is a binding set of principles that brought and joint all of the personal, civic, political, economic …show more content…
The courts held that 'as Community law now stands, the Community has no competence to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.' A lot of logics and reasons were given for this conclusion, the most important one included the fact that under Article 3(b) of the EC Treaty, the nation and the community is to act within the scope and the extension of its capacity as defined by the provisions of the Treaty and nothing else. Moreover, the judges decided to grant the ECHR special community relevant status in previous case law , so this would be the most they would carry on going without being proclaimed legally binding. Craig and De Burca also complained that the ECJ and ECtHR should classify themselves as two separate and different legal entities watching over certain rights that would be relevant to their jurisdiction. In this case, the ECJ looks after the market interests and the application of EC Law while the ECtHR could focus on human rights problems. Previous issues have included differing interpretations on Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (privacy in the