Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Damages and human rights / Jason NE Varuhas.
Published
Oxford ; Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, 2016.
Call Number
K935 .V37 2016
ISBN
9781849463720 (hardback ; alk. paper)
1849463727 (hardback ; alk. paper)
9781782252818 (Epub)
1849463727 (hardback ; alk. paper)
9781782252818 (Epub)
Description
lii, 499 pages ; 25 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)933596261
Note
Based on the author's thesis (doctoral - University of Cambridge, 2011) issued under title: Damages for breaches of human rights : a tort-based approach.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Available in Other Form
Online version: Varuhas, Jason, author. Damages and human rights. Oxford ; Portland, OR : Hart Pub. Ltd, 2016 9781782252818 (DLC) 2016000187
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Foreword
v
Preface
vii
Acknowledgements
xi
Table of Cases
xxi
Table of Legislation
xlv
Table of International Treaties and Conventions
li
1.
Introduction
1
I.
Structure of the Argument
7
Part 1: A Tort-Based Approach to Damages for Human Rights Breaches
2.
Tort Framework
13
I.
Setting the Scene: Vindication, Damages and Torts Theory
14
A.
Concept of Vindication in the Law of Torts
14
i.
Rights and Interests
15
ii.
Vindication and Other Functions
17
B.
Damages
21
C.
Torts Theory
23
II.
Distinguishing Vindicatory and Compensatory Torts
25
A.
Vindicatory Torts: Torts Actionable Per Se
25
i.
Prerequisites to Actionability
26
ii.
Strictness of Liability
27
iii.
Onus
30
iv.
Defences
31
v.
Other Features
32
B.
Compensatory Torts: Negligence
32
i.
Gist: Actionable Loss
33
ii.
Fault
35
iii.
Causation
36
iv.
Duty of Care
39
v.
Onus and Defences
40
vi.
Rights-Based, Vindicatory Theories of Negligence
41
C.
Torts Which Combine Vindication and Compensation: Private Nuisance
45
III.
Vindication and Damages
46
A.
Range of Damages
47
B.
Compensatory Damages and Vindication
50
C.
Compensatory Damages within Torts Actionable Per Se
53
i.
Overview
54
ii.
Normative Damage Inherent in the Interference
58
iii.
Supreme Court Decision in Lumba: Deviation from Orthodoxy
61
iv.
Recovery and Assessment of Damages for Normative Damage
67
v.
Consequential Losses
70
vi.
Other Features of Damages within Torts Actionable Per Se
72
IV.
Conclusions
73
3.
Tort-Based Approach to Human Rights Damages
76
I.
Tort-Based Approach as a Matter of Principle
76
A.
Common Aims of Protection and Vindication: Background
77
B.
Common Aims of Protection and Vindication: Significant Doctrinal Features
82
i.
Standing
83
ii.
Actionable Per Se
83
iii.
Strict Liability
83
iv.
Defences
85
v.
Substantive Questions for the Judiciary
87
vi.
Remedies
87
vii.
Procedure
88
viii.
Miscellaneous
89
C.
Common Functions, the Implications for Damages, and the Prevailing Approach to Human Rights Damages
89
D.
Are Positive Obligations Distinguishable?
97
E.
Common Functions, Common Interests and Coherence
104
F.
What Tort Can Offer
113
II.
Tort-Based Approach: Core Features
116
A.
Non-Compensatory Damages
116
i.
Nominal Damages
117
ii.
User and Gain-Based Measures
117
iii.
Exemplary Damages
122
iv.
Vindicatory Damages
125
B.
Compensatory Damages
129
i.
Non-Pecuniary Damage and Loss
130
ii.
Flexibility in Methodology
134
iii.
Pecuniary Loss
135
iv.
Recoverable Heads Not Limited to those Recognised at Common Law
136
III.
Relationship Between Human Rights Damages and Other Judicial Remedies
140
A.
Monetary Remedies
140
i.
General
140
ii.
Disciplining the Current Approach to Concurrent Liability Under the HRA: Case Study on Nuisance and Article 8
142
B.
Specific Relief
146
i.
Situations where Specific Relief shall be Sufficient Remedy
146
ii.
Situations where Specific Relief is Granted to Prevent a Wrong
147
iii.
Situations where Specific Relief and Damages are Both Required
148
iv.
Situations where Specific Relief is of No Relevance
149
v.
Situations where Damages may be Awarded in Lieu of Injunctive Relief
150
vi.
Specific Relief of Primary Importance in Human Rights Law?
152
IV.
Tort-Based Approach and the Provisions of the HRA
153
A.
Decision to Award Damages
153
B.
Quantum and Range of Damages
157
V.
Flawed Tort-Based Approaches: The United States Constitutional Tort Jurisprudence
159
Part 2: Human Rights Damages and the Public Law[—]Private Law Distinction
4.
Public Law[—]Private Law Distinction
167
Section 1. The Public Law[—]private Law Distinction As A Tool For Legal Development
171
I.
Lack of an Anchor
171
II.
Choppy Seas: The Implications of 'Publicness'
179
III.
Oceans or Seas of Doctrine? The Pluralistic Nature of Public Law Doctrine
184
IV.
Pulling Into Port: Conclusion
187
Section 2. The Public Law[—]private Law Distinction And Human Rights Damages
189
I.
Protection of the Public and Human Rights Damages: The Approach in Anufrijeva
189
A.
Public Interest Theory of Public Law
190
B.
Public Interest Theory and Human Rights Damages
193
C.
Understanding the Public Interest Theory as a Product of Its Time
198
II.
Individual Rights and the Public Interest Theory of Public Law
199
A.
Individual Rights versus Public Duties, Individual Interests versus Public Interests
200
B.
Rights versus Public Duties: The Role of the Court
209
C.
Public Law and Private Law: The Procedural Dimension
212
III.
Conclusion: Slaying Chimaera
218
IV.
Is the Public Interest Approach the Only 'Public Law' Approach?
220
Part 3: Alternative Approaches to Damages for Human Rights Breaches
Introduction
228
I.
Case Law Under the Act
229
II.
Context: No Other Remedy
233
5.
Human Rights Damages and 'Just Satisfaction': The 'Mirror' Approach
235
Section 1. The Terms Of The HRA
238
I.
Principles or Practice?
241
A.
Quantum
244
II.
Section 2(1) Analogy?
245
III.
'Ordinary' Approach
250
Section 2. The Supranational Dimension
252
I.
Supranational versus Domestic Context
252
A.
No Strasbourg Imperative
252
B.
Subsidiary Role of the European Court of Human Rights
254
C.
Conceptual Nature of Convention Rights: International Law versus Domestic Law
258
D.
Supranational Context
261
E.
English Courts' (Lack of) Consideration of the Distinctiveness of Supranational Context
263
F.
Compliance with Convention Requirements
266
II.
Problematic Jurisprudences: Supranational and Municipal
268
A.
Supranational Jurisprudence
269
B.
Limited Guidance
275
C.
Emergence of a Problematic Domestic Jurisprudence
279
i.
Problems of Reasoning
280
ii.
Problems of Broad Discretion: Subjective Concerns and Inconsistency
286
iii.
Quantum
288
iv.
Incoherence
290
D.
Supplementing Strasbourg
292
Section 3. The Methodology Of The Mirror Approach
297
I.
Problematic Method
297
II.
Quantum
301
III.
Inconsistent Method and the Risk of Skewed Interpretation
303
IV.
'[O]ne Damn Thing after Another'
307
Section 4. The Future Of The Mirror Approach Post-Fa Ulkner
310
I.
Delphic Dicta
310
II.
Beginnings of a Liberalisation of Approach?
313
III.
British Bill of Rights?
319
Section 5. Overview
321
6.
Interest-Balancing Approaches
324
Section 1: Doctrinal Analysis Of The Interest-Balancing Approach
326
I.
Interest-Balancing Approach and the Terms of the HRA
326
II.
Interest-Balancing Approach and Convention Requirements
330
A.
Requirements of Article 13 (and Articles 34 and 35(1))
331
B.
Substantive Rights and Remedies
334
C.
Absolute Nature of Article 13
335
D.
Proportionality
336
III.
Interest-Balancing Approach and Fundamental Principles of English Law
337
A.
Ubi Ius, Ibi Remedium
337
B.
Principle of Equality
340
Section 2: Normative Analysis Of The Interest-Balancing Approach
342
I.
Concerns that may Justify an Interest-Balancing Approach
343
II.
Importance of Remedying Rights-Violations
345
III.
Prejudice to the Public Interest: Only in Public Law?
353
IV.
Is the Interest-Balancing Approach Necessary?
355
V.
Public Interest Factors: A Critical Analysis
361
A.
Depletion of Resources Available to Benefit the Wider Community
363
i.
Importance of a Robust, Evidence-Based Approach
367
ii.
Constitutional, Institutional and Practical Concerns
370
iii.
Financial Impact in Other Parts of Public Law
372
B.
Moral Status of the Victim
375
C.
Pragmatic Political Concerns
380
D.
Chilling Effects
382
i.
Empirical Void
382
ii.
Empirical Evidence and Difficulties of Prediction
383
iii.
Limitations of Courts
389
E.
Floodgates and 'Litigation Culture'
390
F.
Leaving the Political Branches to Respond: Is it Realistic?
397
i.
Case Studies
399
VI.
Rule-of-Law and Other Concerns Raised by the Discretionary Nature of the Interest-Balancing Approach
405
VII.
Refining the Interest-Balancing Approach
409
A.
Individual versus Public: Avoiding a False Dichotomy
409
B.
Starting-Point, Structure and Weighting of Factors
418
Section 3. Conclusions
423
7.
Other Methods of Limiting Human Rights Damages
426
I.
Degree of Loss Under Article 41, ECHR
427
II.
EU Law, Francovich Liability and the 'Sufficiently Serious' Criterion
433
A.
Francovich Criteria
434
B.
Should the Francovich Criteria Govern Human Rights Damages?
435
i.
Different Interests
435
ii.
Marginal Remedy
437
iii.
Range of Institutions Potentially Liable
438
iv.
Different Contexts: EU Law versus Domestic Human Rights Law
438
C.
Conclusion
445
III.
Immunities from Suit in US Constitutional Tort Law
446
A.
Importance of Context
447
i.
Constitutional Concerns
448
ii.
Widespread Governmental and Official Immunities
451
iii.
Relevant Defendant
456
iv.
Instrumentalist Conception of Liability
458
B.
Qualified Immunity Doctrine
460
i.
'Clearly Established' Element
460
ii.
'Objective Reasonableness' Element
463
iii.
Avoidance of Substantive Constitutional Issues
466
C.
Conclusion
468
8.
Conclusion
470
Index
477