Bills of Rights : A Comparative Perspective

Bills of rights are currently a much debated topic in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Almost all democratic nations now have a bill of rights. These take a variety of forms. This book provides a comparative analysis of the bills of rights of a number of jurisdictions which have chosen to adopt bills of rights based on interpretative obligations, whereby duties are placed upon courts to interpret national legislation in accordance with human rights standards.

Bills of rights are currently a much debated topic in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Almost all democratic nations, with the exception of Australia, now have a bill of rights. These take a variety of forms, ranging from constitutionally entrenched bills of rights, such as those of the United States and South Africa, to non-binding statements of rights. Falling between these approaches are non-entrenched, statutory bills of rights. Regarding the latter, a model which has become increasingly popular is that of bills of rights based on interpretative obligations, whereby duties are placed upon courts to interpret national legislation in accordance with human rights standards. The book provides a comparative analysis of the bills of rights of a number of jurisdictions which have chosen to adopt such an approach. The jurisdictions considered are New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Australian state of Victoria. The book adopts a unique thematic approach, whereby six aspects of the bills of rights in question have been selected for comparative analysis and a chapter is allocated to each aspect. This approach serves to facilitate the comparative discussion and emphasizes the centrality of the comparative methodology.