Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of the rule of law
An essay on universal declaration of human rights
An essay on universal declaration of human rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of the rule of law
Values and Ethics play an integral role in maintaining the Rule of Law within Modern Australia, evident through the engrained notions of habeas corpus, procedural fairness, division of powers and separation of powers. Even though the Legal System must reflect contemporary society’s values and ethics, many of the core principles have been upheld by society such as the prevention of unlawful detention practised through habeas corpus. Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and evidence within Article 10 and 11 showcase a means of maintaining the Rule of Law through Procedural Fairness and Habeas Corpus. Specifically through the Police Powers Act 2002 and the Terrorism Act 2002, the notion of Habeas Corpus …show more content…
This notion focuses on the procedures to be used by a decision maker to arrive at an impartial decision. Procedural Fairness in a trial ensures fairness, equality and impartiality. Procedural Fairness includes the law of bias through impartiality as the decision maker cannot be connected to the situation and the accused. Their decision must also be based on logically based evidence. The notion also includes the hearing rule which allows the accused to have their story heard and considered by the decision maker prior to a verdict. The notion provides the accused the right to a fair trial and an independent jury, access to justice and most importantly, equality before the law thus preserving and correlating to the Rule of Law. This is reflected through Article 10 of the UDHR signed by the Australian Government, tracing back to the Magna Carta displaying many of the article’s principles. The document like Procedural Fairness, displays principles of being judged fairly and impartially when on trial additionally equality before the law for everyone. In the decision of Momcilovic v The Queen 2011, Judge, Justice Heydon, made numerous links with fundamental human rights such as Procedural Fairness to the Magna Carta therefore exhibiting the link. It has been therefore displayed how the notion of Procedural Fairness can be linked to the Magna Carta and preserving the Rule of law reflecting society’s values and
1. What is the tone of this article? The tone of this article is kinda snotty but truthful in all ways.
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
One of Australia’s biggest moral wrongdoings that has been continued to be overlooked is the providing of safety for refugees. Under the article 14, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It is not in anyway, shape or form illegal to seek asylum from maltreatment. Australia is obliged under international law to: offer protection, give support, ensure that any individual is not sent back unwillingly to the country of their origin. A report made by
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to exist in an absolute form, they cannot exist as a mere Act of Parliament but must form a fundamental part of the Australian Constitution. This seemingly gigantic task is part of the incessant political struggle that the Indigenous population will continue to face. The United Nation’s is an integral part of the political struggle between the Australian government and the Indigenous people and have on many occasions fought to raise the issue of human rights violation within the Australian constitution.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
The universal deceleration of human rights is a known and recognized worldwide. The general public sees it as a vital aspect of the legal system. Yet despite this, we still have various amounts of conflict, dehumanizing acts and large scale crime. This has confused mass amount of people, but the solution is simple, the articles listed within the declaration are not regarded highly and aren’t protected and utilised by the law. A particularly good example is article 11: innocent until proven guilty, as there are multiple incidents, both internationally and domestically that prove how little regard is given to upholding this human rights.
Human rights are a set of legal and moral guidelines that are inherent to every person regardless of their wealth, colour, religion, country of origin, or any other status. This essay discusses whether or not Australia should have a bill of rights. Too many, a bill of rights seems like a logical course of action for Australia, however, as a nation, Australia has prospered without a bill of rights for many years, but is still considered one of the safest and happiest nation on Earth. This contradiction is not because Australian lawmakers do not prey on its citizens, rather it is because our current form of governance and unique international reputation limits our government from doing such.
‘Law as integrity’ embraces a vision for judges which states that as far as possible judges should identify legal rights and duties assuming that they are created by the public as an entity, and that they express the public’s perception of justice and fairness. This requires Dworkin’s ideal of Hercules, a judge of ‘superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen’, to ask whether his interpretation of law could form a part of a coherent theory justifying the whole legal system. Law as integrity stipulates that the law must express one voice. Judges must accept that the law is based around coherent principles about justice, fairness and procedural due process, in all new cases which comes before them in order to treat everybody equally.
It is a common misconception that asylum seekers pose a threat to the welfare of Australia, however, these beings just wish to seek a life that includes their right to life and freedom. Many of the countries from which these individuals originate inflict a constant fear, completely unbearable. Hence, they seek refuge in a location renowned for it’s just and fair environment, however, the detention centres these asylum seekers are placed in while awaiting resettlement rights, exhibit completely unethical practises, only then to be resettled and become subject to stereotypical prejudice. There are multiple laws and sanctions in place to protect the rights of these refugees, however, authority is often exploited and these ‘unlawful non-citizens’ are not regarded as human in the slightest.
Should the fairness doctrine be reinstated? What is the fairness doctrine some might ask? The fairness was a United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced in 1949 that required television and radio broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Contrasting points were to be introduced in what was viewed as—honest, equitable, and balanced and its main point was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.
Kirby, M. 1997, ‘Bill of Rights for Australia – But do we need it?’, viewed 30 March 2014, < http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0>
Promoting fairness in the classroom not only gives the teacher respect but also gives the students a sense of safeness and trust within the classroom. Creating an environment that revolves around fairness, trust and respect will be beneficial to all of the children in the class. The terms respect and trust are pretty straightforward. There doesn’t need to be a debate on what those two mean, but the same cannot be said for fairness. When one usually hears the word “fair” it is often looked at as synonymous to the term “equal” but the two are not the same, especially in a classroom setting. The term fairness on the classroom level means that the individual students are given what he or she may need in order to be successful; fairness does not
Impartiality means that the judge should not show bias to any of the parties. The two parties should be treated in the same way in terms of equality. Additionally, both parties should be given similar opportunities to submit their cases.
The principles associated with procedural fairness can include the right to counsel, adequate notice of the case to be met, pre-trial release of information, the ability to make submissions, evidentiary standards and the provision of reasons for decisions that are taken. The following is a brief outline of how a number of these principles are addressed in the summary trial context .