Human Rights Protection in Australia
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper discusses the United States' and Canada's constitutional Bills of Rights, and highlights how Australia lacks such a bill in its approach to human rights. The paper addresses the advantages of a Bills of Rights in enforcing human rights standards, but demonstrates that even a constitutional Bills of Rights is not a guarantee of adequate compliance with sustainable standards. The paper points out both the strengths and weaknesses of Australia's approach to protecting human rights.
From the Paper:"Even though Australia does not have a constitutional Bill of Rights, this does not make the process of protecting human rights more difficult. Numerous Western countries have a Bill of Rights, as the most famous one is that of the United States. The U.S. Bill of Rights demonstrates the relevance of a series of rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the media, the right to keep arms, and others (Kirk 1990, p. 493). There is a significant right not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment. Moreover, the U.S. Bill of Rights indicates its restrictive character in the sense of limiting the power of Congress.
"Another important constitutional bill of rights is the Canadian Bill of Rights, which represents a federal statute. The list of freedoms is quite long to include freedom of belief, thought and expression, freedom of association, etc. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights has been extensively recognized as ineffective to protect human rights (Ison 1997, p. 501). In the context of Australia, a substantial number of people demonstrate a solid belief that Australia has a similar set of rights as those identified in the constitutions of the United States and Canada. Yet Australia has an insignificant number of constitutionally enumerated rights compared to the situation in the other two countries."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Amar, A 1992, 'The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment', The Yale Law Journal, vol.101, no. 6, pp. 1193-1284.
- Fallon, R & Meltzer, D 2007, 'Habeas corpus jurisdiction, substantive rights, and the war onterror', Harvard Law Review, vol. 120, no. 8, pp. 2029-2112.
- Handsley, E 2001, 'Human rights under the Australian Constitution', Australian Quarterly, vol.73, no. 2, pp. 34-38, 40.
- Ison, T 1997, 'A constitutional Bill of Rights: The Canadian experience', The Modern LawReview, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 499-512.
- Kirk, R 1990, 'The rights of man vs. the Bill of Rights', Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 20,no. 3, pp. 493-501.
Cite this Comparison Essay:
Human Rights Protection in Australia (2014, January 20) Retrieved December 10, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/comparison-essay/human-rights-protection-in-australia-153790/
"Human Rights Protection in Australia" 20 January 2014. Web. 10 December. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/comparison-essay/human-rights-protection-in-australia-153790/>