Many countries confront similar human rights controversies, but,
despite the claimed universality of human rights values they are
not always resolved in the same way. Why? What role do local legal
conditions play? Is human rights discourse more potent where rights
are constitutionally entrenched, rather than where there is a
tradition of respect for underlying human rights values but no bill
of rights?
Comparative socio-legal examination of three recent
controversies - double jeopardy reform, recognition of same-sex
relationships and the operation of hate speech laws - in four
countries - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom
provides answers to these questions.
Examination of these controversies suggest that differences in
the design of domestic legal institutions and procedures for the
injection of human rights values into legal decision-making
processes can have a powerful effect on the manner in which human
rights issues are constructed, handled and resolved.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
