Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTyrrell, Hélène
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-05T11:00:12Z
dc.date.available2015-10-05T11:00:12Z
dc.date.issued2014-01
dc.identifier.citationTyrrell, H. 2014. The Use of Foreign Jurisprudence in Human Rights Cases before the UK Supreme Court. Queen Mary University of London.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/9066
dc.descriptionPhDen_US
dc.description.abstractThis thesis is the first major study of the UK Supreme Court’s use of jurisprudence from foreign domestic courts in human rights cases. It contributes to the debate on judicial comparitivism by asking when, how and why the Supreme Court uses foreign jurisprudence, as well as whether the Court should be making greater use of it. The research findings are drawn from quantitative and qualitative analysis of judgments handed down by the Supreme Court during its first four years (2009-2013). These are supported by evidence obtained through interviews with ten Justices of the Supreme Court, one Lord Justice of Appeal and the eight Supreme Court Judicial Assistants. In the absence of legislative guidance, the use of foreign jurisprudence is neither consistent nor systematic. Different Justices use foreign jurisprudence to different degrees and for different reasons. The main use of foreign jurisprudence is as a heuristic device: it provides the Justices with a different analytical lens through which to reflect on their own reasoning about a problem. Some Justices also use foreign jurisprudence when interpreting a common legislative scheme and to support their conclusions. As a result, the Justices use foreign jurisprudence differently according to the audience to whom their reasons are addressed. Thus foreign jurisprudence can assist the Supreme Court to enter into dialogue with the Strasbourg Court. However, this thesis does not support theories of transjudicial dialogue with other domestic courts; the evidence does not indicate that the Supreme Court considers itself to be part of global conversation. Further, the use of foreign jurisprudence is limited by practical barriers including, but not restricted to, time pressures, the availability of comparative resources and the greater use of plurality style judgments. These barriers are worth addressing if the Supreme Court is to fully utilise the heuristic value of foreign jurisprudenceen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherQueen Mary University of Londonen_US
dc.subjectLawen_US
dc.subjectHuman rights lawen_US
dc.subjectJurisprudenceen_US
dc.subjectComparative jurisprudenceen_US
dc.titleThe Use of Foreign Jurisprudence in Human Rights Cases before the UK Supreme Court.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Theses [2768]
    Theses Awarded by Queen Mary University of London

Show simple item record