000			04274cam a2200577 a 4500
999			_c3406 _d3406
001			ocn801590116
003			OCoLC
005			20170825162653.0
008			120814s2012 enk b 001 0 eng d
010			_a 2012946986
015			_aGBB269911 _2bnb
016	7		_a016126336 _2Uk
020			_a9780199669301 _q(hbk.)
020			_a0199669309 _q(hbk.)
029	1		_aAU@ _b000050160822
029	1		_aGBVCP _b728837382
029	1		_aNZ1 _b14766735
029	1		_aUNITY _b12767019X
035			_a(OCoLC)801590116
040			_aUKMGB _beng _cDLC _dUKMGB _dOCLCO _dBTCTA _dYDXCP _dBWK _dYNK _dHVL _dBWX _dCDX _dGZL _dYLS _dCSFLA _dMUU _dUNBCA _dVRC _dCHUNN _dOCLCF _dBEDGE _dOCLCQ _dGBVCP _dOCLCQ
042			_alccopycat
049			_aTZAA
050	0	0	_aK3240 _b.S268 2012
082	0	4	_a341.48 _223
100	1		_aSathanapally, Aruna, _d1981-
245	1	0	_aBeyond disagreement : _bopen remedies in human rights adjudication / _cAruna Sathanapally.
250			_a1st ed.
260			_aOxford, United Kingdom : _bOxford University Press, _c2012.
300			_axii, 241 pages ; _c24 cm
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0		_aOpen remedies in human rights adjudication -- The role of the legislature -- From dialogue to engagement -- The criteria for a declaration of incompatibility -- Judicial restraint and activism considered -- The pattern of institutional dialogue -- Remedial deliberation in the legislature -- Belmarsh Prisoners and dialogue over control orders.
520			_a"Examining the role of 'open remedies' in human rights adjudication, this book provides a new perspective informing comparative constitutional debates on how to structure institutional relationships over fundamental rights and freedoms. Open remedies declare a human rights violation but invite the other branches of government to decide what corrective action should be taken. Open remedies are premised on the need to engage institutions beyond courts in the process of thinking about and acting on human rights problems. This book considers examples across the United States, South Africa, Canada, and internationally, emphasising their similarities and differences in design and the diverse ways they could operate in practice. The book investigates these possibilities through the first systematic legal and empirical study of the declaration of incompatibility model under the United Kingdom Human Rights Act. This new model provides a non-binding declaration that the law has infringed human rights standards, for the legislature's consideration. By design, it has the potential to support democratic deliberation on what human rights require of the laws and policies of the State, however, it also carries uncertainties and risks. Providing a lucid account of existing debates on the relative roles of courts and legislatures to determine the requirements of fundamental rights commitments, the book argues that we need to look beyond the theoretical focus on rights disagreements, to how these remedies have operated in practice across the courts and the political branches of government. Importantly, we should pay attention to the nature and scope of legislative engagement in deliberation on the human rights matters raised by declarations of incompatibility. Adopting this approach, this book presents a carefully argued view of how courts have exercised this power, as well how the UK executive and Parliament have responded to its use."--Publisher's website.
600			_2on order
650		0	_aHuman rights.
650		0	_aAdministrative procedure. _916014
650		7	_aDroits de l'homme. _2eclas
650		7	_aConflit des lois. _2eclas
650		7	_aProc�edure administrative. _2eclas
650		7	_aAdministrative procedure. _2fast _916014
650		7	_aHuman rights. _2fast
650		7	_aMenschenrecht _2gnd
650		7	_aTransformation _2gnd
650		7	_aInternationaler Vergleich _2gnd
650		7	_aHUMAN RIGHTS. _2unbist
650		7	_aHUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. _2unbist
650		7	_aADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. _2unbist _916014
650		7	_aCOMPARATIVE LAW. _2unbist
650		7	_aUNITED KINGDOM. _2unbist _914450
856	4	1	_3Table of contents _uhttp://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy14pdf03/2012946986.html
942			_2lcc _cBOOK