Sandra Fredman

The interpretation of human rights inevitably requires value judgements. But if the power of interpretation and limitation of human rights is left to elected legislators on the basis of majority voting, perpetual minorities may be perpetually subordinated. But leaving judges to make the final decision flies in the face of the basic principle that all fundamental decisions in society should be taken by the people themselves. Prisoners’ voting rights throw the dilemma into particularly sharp relief. Should an elected legislature have the final say on removing the fundamental right to vote from a section of the population, particularly one which is deeply unpopular and which politicians have no natural interest in defending? The most promising way out of this dilemma is to move away from a polarisation between courts and legislatures, and instead regard both as contributing to a democratic resolution of human rights disputes. An increasingly influential stream of thought characterises the relationship as one of dialogue. Rather than courts having the final say, judicial decisions provoke a response from the legislature. In this paper, I aim to go beyond a dialogic model and propose one based on deliberative democracy. Drawing on the distinction between interest bargaining and value-based or deliberative decisions, I argue that human rights can only be properly addressed within a democracy through deliberative means. In other words, the power of the principle should constitute the reason for adopting it, rather than the power of those whose interests it serves. Otherwise, those without political power risk perpetual subordination, undermining the raison d’être of human rights protection. It is here that the courts are in a position to make a unique contribution to the democratic resolution of human rights issues. I argue that courts should ensure that human rights decisions are indeed taken deliberatively within the constraints set by the human rights themselves. I call this a ‘bounded deliberative’ approach. The final section applies these principles to prisoners’ voting rights cases in South Africa and the UK.

Despite increasingly sophisticated antidiscrimination laws, dis- crimination and inequality have proved remarkably resilient. This prompts questions about the limits of law’s ability to achieve social change. One way forward is to fashion new legal tools, which impose duties to promote or achieve equality, rather than focusing on individual rights against specific perpetrators. In the past decade in Britain, such fourth generation equality laws have been developed in a distinctive format, requiring the decision-maker to “have due regard” to equality, rather than taking action to achieve such objectives. Thisstandard has triggered a spate of judicial review cases, particularly in response to austerity measures imposing deep budgetary cuts on disadvantaged groups. This Paper’s aims are two-fold. The first is to examine the judicial approach to the due regard standard in the light of recent regulatory theory. Do courts consider the due regard standard as a signal for deference, or can it be understood as an example of “reflexive law,” facilitating deliberative decision-making rather than imposing external standards likely to meet with resistance from the regulated body? The Paper concludes that courts have struggled to deal with the regulatory challenges presented by the “due regard” standard, wavering between appropriate and inappropriate intervention. The second aim is an analysis of whether a deliberative standard is appropriate in the equality context. The record of judicial review cases demonstrates that such a standard risks legitimating or simply reconfiguring existing inequalities.

ISBN: 0002-919x

Poverty is increasingly a human rights issue. The aim of this paper is to consider what role the right to equality can and should play in relation to poverty. It draws on the experience in Britain, Canada, the US and South Africa to develop several ways in which equality could function in relation to poverty. It concludes that while the right to equality can make a valuable contribution to apsects of pvoerty based on misrecognition and oscial exclusion, it has not yet been sufficiently developed to address distributive inequalities in its own right.

ISBN: 1016-4359

A key advance of the Equality Act 2010 is its introduction of a single equality duty. The new ‘public sector equality duty’ harmonises the earlier duties and extends its coverage to include other protected characteristics. In addition, the statutory aims have been deepened to reflect a substantive conception of equality. However, the core of the duty is unchanged. It is a duty to ‘have due regard’, not to take steps or to achieve equality. Is this an attempt to incorporate a deliberative, reflexive approach to achieving equality, recognising that a straightforward command and control approach might encounter unproductive resistance? Or does it reflect a fundamental ambivalence as to the importance of equality issues? Section 2 below examines the structure of the statutory provisions. Section 3 asks whether the statutory provision is an example of reflexive law. Particular attention is paid to the spate of judicial review cases relying on the equality duty to challenge a range of budget cuts. It is argued that courts have struggled to deal with the regulatory challenges presented by the equality duties. Nor is it clear that a reflexive approach is appropriate to achieve substantive equality.

ISBN: 1464-366