Human rights treaties in administrative decision-making
Human Rights Treaties in Administrative Decision-Making
What Are Human Rights Treaties?
Human rights treaties are international agreements that set out fundamental rights and freedoms to be respected by signatory states. Examples include:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Convention Against Torture (CAT)
Influence on Administrative Decision-Making
When public authorities make administrative decisions (like granting permits, imposing sanctions, or deporting individuals), those decisions must respect the human rights obligations of the state.
Domestic courts often interpret administrative laws in light of human rights treaties, especially where these treaties are incorporated into domestic law.
Authorities must respect due process rights (fair hearing, reasoned decisions).
Decisions must not violate rights to privacy, liberty, equality, freedom from discrimination, etc.
Human rights treaties require proportionality and necessity tests in administrative actions limiting rights.
Why It Matters
Ensures fair, transparent, and accountable governance.
Protects individuals against arbitrary or abusive administrative power.
Strengthens the legitimacy of administrative actions.
Encourages harmonization of domestic administrative law with international human rights standards.
Detailed Explanation of Important Case Law on Human Rights Treaties in Administrative Decision-Making
Here are six landmark cases illustrating this relationship:
1. Golder v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1975)
Background:
Mr. Golder, a prisoner, was denied permission to bring a civil lawsuit, claiming violation of his right to access to courts.
Ruling:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Article 6 (right to a fair trial) includes the right of access to a court, and public authorities must not hinder this right in administrative decisions.
Significance:
Administrative decisions that block access to justice violate human rights treaties.
Access to courts is a fundamental right influencing administrative discretion.
2. Soering v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1989)
Background:
The UK intended to extradite Mr. Soering to the US, where he risked inhumane treatment on death row.
Ruling:
The ECtHR held that extradition would violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the ECHR.
Significance:
Administrative decisions (extradition) must consider human rights impacts.
Human rights treaties limit administrative discretion to protect life and dignity.
3. Kioa v. West (1985) – Australia
Background:
An administrative decision to deport Mr. Kioa without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Ruling:
The High Court of Australia ruled that procedural fairness (natural justice) is a fundamental principle under administrative law, reinforced by Australia's obligations under the ICCPR.
Significance:
Human rights treaties reinforce procedural safeguards in administrative decisions.
Right to be heard is essential before adverse decisions.
4. Tariq v. Home Office (UK, 2012)
Background:
Mr. Tariq was detained and faced deportation without adequate consideration of his human rights claims.
Ruling:
The UK courts stressed that administrative decisions like detention and deportation must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporates the ECHR), ensuring respect for the right to liberty (Article 5) and family life (Article 8).
Significance:
Human rights laws require administrative authorities to balance state interests with individual rights.
Decisions must be proportionate and respect private/family life.
5. Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2011)
Background:
Relatives of Iraqi civilians killed by UK forces claimed violation of their rights under the ECHR.
Ruling:
The ECtHR extended the scope of the ECHR to administrative actions taken by state agents abroad, holding that human rights obligations apply to administrative acts by states beyond their territory.
Significance:
Human rights treaties constrain administrative decisions even in extraterritorial contexts.
Broadens accountability for state administrative actions.
6. Louise O’Keeffe v. Ireland (ECHR, 2014)
Background:
The applicant complained of state failure to protect her from sexual abuse by school staff, implicating administrative oversight.
Ruling:
The ECtHR held the state responsible for failing to protect rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Significance:
Administrative negligence can constitute human rights violations.
States must ensure administrative systems protect vulnerable individuals.
Summary
Human rights treaties are critical in shaping fairness, legality, and proportionality in administrative decision-making.
Authorities must ensure decisions respect procedural rights, protect fundamental freedoms, and consider human dignity.
Courts increasingly use human rights frameworks to review and sometimes overturn administrative decisions that violate treaty obligations.
These treaties promote accountability, transparency, and protection of individual rights in administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments