comparemela.com


I cited Timothy Jones who wrote:
Australia and Britain have remarkably few constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights. This is not to say, of course, that the two countries are without any such protections. The
Magna Carta of 1215 (“that great confirmatory instrument … which is the ground work of all our Constitutions”) and the Bill of Rights of 1689 (“the product of an alliance between parliamentarians and common lawyers”) remain, but they have a limited field of operation and are inadequate as modern statements of fundamental rights.
13 And as subsequent discussion will demonstrate, the Australian Constitution does have something to say on the subject. It is nevertheless the case that the Anglo-Australian tradition has been to place faith in the common law, supplemented by legislation in specific areas, together with responsible and representative Parliamentary government, as the best means by which fundamental rights can be protected. As Sir Ninian Stephen has noted: “The ‘founding fathers’ of our Constitution took it for granted that individual rights were secure under the common law.”[1]

Related Keywords

Australia ,United States ,United Kingdom ,Australians ,Britain ,Americans ,Australian ,John Locke ,Colin Howard ,Timothy Jones ,Ninian Stephen ,Griffith Society ,Magna Carta ,Australian Constitution ,Sir Ninian Stephen ,Fundamental Rights ,European Lessons ,Federal Law Review ,Glorious Revolution ,Magna Cartamust ,Third World ,ஆஸ்திரேலியா ,ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் ,ஒன்றுபட்டது கிஂக்டம் ,ஆஸ்திரேலியர்கள் ,பிரிட்டன் ,அமெரிக்கர்கள் ,ஆஸ்திரேலிய ,ஜான் பூட்டு ,கொலின் ஹோவர்ட் ,தீமோத்தேயு ஜோன்ஸ் ,நினியன் ஸ்டீபன் ,மாக்னா கார்ட்டா ,ஆஸ்திரேலிய அரசியலமைப்பு ,ஐயா நினியன் ஸ்டீபன் ,அடிப்படை உரிமைகள் ,ஐரோப்பிய பாடங்கள் ,கூட்டாட்சியின் சட்டம் விமர்சனம் ,புகழ்பெற்ற புரட்சி ,மூன்றாவது உலகம் ,

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.