Citizen UK 2000 and the European Convention for the Promotion And Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms
This thesis sets out to review the extent to which the European Convention for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(1) has influenced the political and legal order of England and Wales.(2) Analysis is explored along a number of lines of investigation. 
 
A review of the influence of the ECHR on the constitutional order of the UK is prefaced by analysis of its early influence on the order of the Netherlands, Germany and France.(3) Analysis gives rise to two questions 
 
Does the ECHR, dependent on the signatory-state with its own constitutional arrangement and legal culture, support a claim that a collective enforcement of human rights (4) protection can not exist empirically, therefore can not achieve as a transcending philosophy? 
 
Does the ECHR's apparent affinity with the monist order of the civil-law tradition render it in relation to the UK dualist order an impracticable statement of ideal? 
 
Drafted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the rights and freedoms of the ECHR are accorded a generic structure, essentially subject to derogation. Whether the ECHR is capable of advancing an effective fon-n of human rights protection, this thesis examines the genesis of the 
ECHR, including its absence of inquisitorial function. Analysis gives rise to the question: 
 
What is to be expected of the ECHR: the promotion of a common understanding of HR intimated by the Congress of Europe 1948, or a collective enforcement of protection inherent in an understanding of the telos of the ECHR? 
 
Narrowing the focus of analysis to the UK, this thesis examines its response to the concern of terrorism, asylum and various aspects of criminal justice and asks: 
 
Whether the concept of HR protection has become the last haven of sui-generis positivism, and if so, the ECHR a raison d'etre of the signatory- state? 
 
With regard to the judicial treatment of the rights and freedoms of the individual post the (5) Human Rights Act 1998(5), this thesis examines the functioning of Section 3 of the HRA. Analysis raises a number of questions: 
 
Does a division in judicial reasoning exist between, and/or within, the higher and lower courts regarding the application of the HRA/ECHR? If so, on what grounds? 
 
Can a universal humanity exist in a legal order where rights are treated as a form of residual liberty remaining after legal restraints are subtracted? 
 
Whether post 2000, a decline in autonomous law has resulted in a convergence of the legal and political and the creation of a national responsive law in which the HR concern of the individual is placed below that of the prevailing Government and judiciary, the findings of this 
thesis are used to test the assertion that: 
 
The Article I ECHR agreement by the UK to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights defined in Section 1, is not matched by a realisation of those rights by everyone within its jurisdiction; 
 
Subject to the sovereignty of Governments and politics of the national judiciary, the ECHR constitutes an order for the popularisation of the concept of HR protection, as opposed to a system for the collective enforcement of the rights and freedom of the individual. 
 
(1) Hereafter, ECHR 
(2) Excluding the legal order and legislative autonomy of Scotland. Hereafter, UK 
(3) Following its ratification by the Netherlands, Germany 
 and France 
(4) Hereafter,HR 
(5) Hereafter, HRA
Judicial Activism in the House of Lords: A Composite Constitutionalist Approach
The article considers the debate on judicial activism in the context of British constitutional law, and advances a theory of "composite constitutiuonalism." Accepting the role of the judiciary as an important actor in the public decision-making process, it however argues that in the context of multi-participant ongoing public processes, the court is neither the bearer of the last word nor can it single-handedly reform socially accepted norms. In its approach to this issue, the article elaborates further on Cohn and Kremnitzer's model of judicial activism (18 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 333 (2005)). This model presents a composite view of the role of the judiciary in the public sphere, and argues for active judicial participation that is nevertheless constrained by the constitutional framework. On a socio-legal level, these judiciary's different functions support fifteen parameters, which can be used to assess judicial contribution in its various forms. As a case study, the article analyses the indefinite detention decision (A) of 2004, and defines a more complex picture. In consideration of the surrounding dynamics of the decision, A was well grounded in the social decision-making process, and expresses a lower level of activism in this respect. Finally, the current constitutional framework justifies intervention to protect the rights involved, centered on liberty of the person. These results redefine the decision as a compound expression of activism and restraint, which reflects the composite role of the judiciary. As such, the model belongs to the constitutionalist camp, an emerging public law theory that supports an empowered judiciary and advocates the role of the courts as active participants in an expanded public sphere of decision-making and rule-implementation. The article is also a defense of this theory. It challenges recent criticism of constitutionalism as misrepresentation of the true nature of this theory.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.