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 suggests 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
