Harnessing the power of the past? Lord Hoffmann and the Belmarsh Detainees case

Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 534-561

  Poole, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28744435263     PISSN: 0263323X     EISSN: 14676478     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.00337.x     Document Type: Review

References (193)

1. Sir S. Sedley, 'The Rocks or the Open Sea: Where is the Human Rights Act Heading?' (2005) 32 J. of Law and Society 3, at 17.
2. For a good account of the functioning and impact of the Human Rights Act to date, see C. Gearty, Principles of Human Rights Adjudication (2003).
3. A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 W.L.R. 87.
4. See, for example, A. Tomkins, 'Readings of A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department' [2005] Public Law 259;
5. S. Shah, 'The UK's Anti-terror Legislation and the House of Lords: the First Skirmish' (2005) 5 Human Rights Law Rev. 403;
6. T.R. Hickman, 'Between Human Rights and the Rule of Law: Indefinite Detention and the Derogation Model of Constitutionalism' (2005) 68 Modern Law Rev. 655;
7. S. Tierney, 'Determining the State of Exception: What Role for Parliament and the Courts?' (2005) 68 Modern Law Rev. 668;
8. B. Dickson, 'Law Versus Terrorism: Can Law Win?' [2005] EHRLR 11.
9. For critical analysis of these sections of the Act, see A. Tomkins, 'Legislating against terror: the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001' [2002] Public Law 205;
10. H. Fenwick, 'The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response?' (2002) 65 Modern Law Rev. 724.
11. [2002] EWCA Civ 1502; [2004] Q.B. 335.
12. Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3644).
13. A v. Home Secretary, UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of 26 May 2003 op. cit., n. 3, per Lord Bingham at [73].
14. id., paras 8-10, 16-21, 28-30, 38-41, 48-50, and 54-57.
15. For example, id., at [69] (dealing with the discrimination issue) refers to the following instruments, among others: Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live 1985; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949; Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 ; Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons 1954. See, also, paras. [58] (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948) and [60] (Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live).
16. id., at [61] (UN Security Council Resolution 1456, 20 January 2003).
17. id., at [61] (UN Commission on Human Rights, report of 26 May 2003).
18. id.,at[69](Shaughnessy v. United States, ex rel Mezei 345 US 206 (1953); Lynch v. Cannatella 810 F 2d 1363 (1987); Fernandez v. Wilkinson 505 F Supp 787 (1980); Zadvydas v. Davis 533 US 678 (2001); Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 US 581 (1889)).
19. id., at [30] (R v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 and Libman v. Attorney General of Quebec (1997) 3 BHRC 269).
20. id., at [88].
21. Lawless v. Ireland (No. 3) (1979-80) 1 EHRR 15. (The case was decided in 1961.)
22. A v. Home Secretary, UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of 26 May 2003 op. cit., n. 3, at [92].
23. K. Ewing, 'The Unbalanced Constitution' in Sceptical Essays on Human Rights, eds. T. Campbell, K.D. Ewing, and A. Tomkins (2001) 108.
24. R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 A.C. 85 and R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 A.C. 603, 659.
25. See, for example, Abu Rideh v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123, para. [265] (per Laws LJ); R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [1999] 3 All E.R. 400 (per Lord Hoffmann); London Regional Transport v. Mayor of London [2001] EWCA Civ 1491, para. [62] (per Sedley LJ); Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers (No.2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109, at 283 (per Lord Goff);
26. H. Woolf, 'Judicial Review: The Tensions between the Executive and the Judiciary' (1998) 114 Law Q. Rev. 579.
27. But compare, for example, R (on the application of Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26, paras. [23] (per Lord Bingham), [26-27] (per Lord Steyn), and [32] (per Lord Cooke).
28. See, for example, R. Stevens, The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution (2002) 112-18;
29. Sedley, The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution op. cit., n. 1.
30. See, for example, J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (1987, 2nd edn.);
31. W.T. Murphy, The Oldest Social Science? Configurations of Law and Modernity (1997);
32. J.W. Tubbs, The Common Law Mind: Medieval and Early Modern Conceptions (2000).
33. Compare, for example, M. Loughlin, 'Rights, Democracy, and Law' in Campbell, Ewing and Tomkins, The Common Law Mind: Medieval and Early Modern Conceptions op. cit., n. 18, p. 55: 'Symbolically at least, the 1998 Act marks the shift from a positivist, liberal democratic model to a rights based conception of law as a set of architectonic principles which frames the political order.'
34. Ewing has made the related point that adherence to this myth has also resulted in a tendency to exclude consideration of the (future) inclusion of social and cultural rights in domestic law: see K.D. Ewing, 'Social Rights and Constitutional Law' [1999] Public Law 104.
35. See, also, the comments of Jack Straw (then Home Secretary): 'The ECHR ... was itself a British export.'
36. ('Building a Human Rights Culture', DCA address to Civil Service College seminar, 9 December 1999.)
37. E. Wicks, 'The UK Government's Perceptions of the European Convention on Human Rights at the Time of Entry' [2000] Public Law 438.
38. H. Steiner and P. Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (2000, 2nd edn.) 787-8.
39. Attorney-General Sir Hartley Shawcross, CAB 130/64, minutes of ministerial meeting, 18 October 1950
40. cited in Wicks, minutes of ministerial meeting, op. cit., n. 27, p. 4417.
41. See, also, the comments of Lord Jowitt (then Lord Chancellor): We are not prepared to encourage our European friends to jeopardise our whole system of law, which we have laboriously built up over the centuries, in favour of some half-baked scheme to be administered by some unknown court ... It completely passes the wit of man to guess what results would be arrived at by a tribunal ... drawn from various European States possessing completely different systems of law ... Any student of our legal institutions ... must recoil from this document [the ECHR] with a feeling of horror. (LCO 2/6274, Note by Jowitt to Dalton, 3 August 1950.)
42. See A.W.B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention (2004) chs. 13 and 14.
43. E. Wicks, '"Declaratory of Existing Rights" The UK's Role in Drafting a European Bill of Rights: Mark lI' [2001] Public Law 532, 536-7.
44. See, for example, A. Lester, 'Fundamental Rights: the United Kingdom Isolated?' [1984] Public Law 46;
45. A. Lester and L. Clapinska, 'Human Rights in the British Constitution' in The Changing Constitution, eds. J. Jowell and D. Oliver (2004, 5th edn.).
46. J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, tr. T. Burger (1992) ch. 3;
47. D. Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture (1999).
48. See, for example, J. Bentham, 'Anarchical Fallacies or Supply without Burthen' in Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man, ed. J. Waldron (1987);
49. L.G. Mitchell (ed.), Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1999).
50. See, also, K.D. Ewing, 'The Politics of the British Constitution' [2000] Public Law 405.
51. K.D. Ewing and C. Gearty, The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain, 1914-1945 (2000).
52. On the United Kingdom's record in more recent years see, for example, K.D. Ewing and C.A. Gearty, Freedom under Thatcher: Civil Liberties in Modern Britain (1990);
53. C. Graham and T. Presser (eds.), Waiving the Rules: The British Constitution under Thatcherism (1988).
54. A v. Home Secretary, C. Graham and T. Presser, Waiving the Rules: The British Constitution under Thatcherism op. cit., n. 3, at [86].
55. id., at [89].
56. Compare Lord Steyn, 'The Role of the Bar, The Judge and the Jury: Winds of Change' [1999] Public Law 51: 'This country has above all the priceless advantage of a long history of constitutional habits.'
57. A v. Home Secretary, Lord Steyn, Public Law op. cit., n. 3, at [91].
58. See, for example, id. at [89].
59. Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] A.C. 206.
60. Defence (General) Regulations 1939, reg. 18B, para. (1).
61. See, for example, A.W.B. Simpson, In the Highest Degree Odious (1994);
62. D. Dyzenhaus, Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems (1991) chs. 4 and 8.
63. M. Tushnet, 'Defending Korematsu?: Reflections on Civil Liberties in Wartime' (2003) Wisconsin Law Rev. 273.
64. The response to the present terrorist threat in Germany provides an interesting parallel. There, due to the strong negative example of the German experience under the Nazi dictatorship, the possibility of indefinite detention without charge or trial does not even get onto the political agenda: it is almost a taboo. See, for example, D. Haubrich, 'September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared' (2003) 38 Government and Opposition 3.
65. Korematsu v. United States 323 US 214 (1944). The case is referred to in A v. Home Secretary, D. Haubrich, Government and Opposition op. cit., n. 3, per Lord Bingham at [41].
66. See, for example, E. Rostow, 'The Japanese American Cases A Disaster' (1945) 54 Yale Law J. 489.
67. Naturally, things are not always as simple as this thesis might seem to suggest. Tushnet himself recognizes that political communities do not always learn from past mistakes in this way: memories can be short. And, even where they do, Tushnet warns that the avoidance of one sort of mistake may lead to nothing more productive than the making of a mistake of a different kind.
68. Tushnet, Yale Law J. op. cit., n. 46, pp. 283-4.
69. J. Steyn, 'Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole' (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Q. 1.
70. See, also, J. Steyn, '2000-2005: Laying the Foundations of Human Rights Law in the United Kingdom' (British Institute of International and Comparative Law lecture, 10 June 2005).
71. G.J. Jacobsohn, Apple of Gold: Constitutionalism in Israel and the United States (1995) 225;
72. C. McCrudden, 'A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights' (2000) 20 Ox. J of Legal Studies 499, at 518.
73. K. McEvoy and H. Conway, 'The Dead, the Law, and the Politics of the Past' (2004) 31 J. of Law and Society 539, at 562.
74. D.L. Shapiro, 'In Defense of Judicial Candor' (1987) 100 Harvard Law Rev. 731, at 739.
75. See, also, L. Fuller, The Law in Quest of Itself (1940) 13: a judge may resort to 'oblique' methods in an 'attempt to improve a tradition while transmitting it.'
76. The classic work on the subject is still F.W. Maitland, 'Why the History of English Law is Not Written' in Collected Papers, Vol. 1, ed. H.A.L. Fisher (1908).
77. See, also, G.R. Elton, F. W. Maitland (1985) ch. 1 ;
78. Q. Skinner, 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas' (1969) History and Theory 3.
79. For a revealing account of the mnemonic properties of myths, see E.W. Barber and P.T. Barber, When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth (2004).
80. The identity of the relevant 'we' is rather glossed in Lord Hoffmann's judgment. Note the elision between 'United Kingdom' and 'England' at [91]: The 'nation' is a social organism, living in its territory (in this case, the United Kingdom) under its own form of government and subject to a system of laws which expresses its own political and moral values ... In many important respects, England is the same nation as it was at the time of the first Elizabeth or the Glorious Revolution. In his recent book The English Constitution: Myths and Realities (2004), Ian Ward uses the more precise phrase 'Anglo-British constitution' to describe this entity.
81. See, also, the discussion in A. Tomkins, Our Republican Constitution (2005) 108-14.
82. 542 US (2004) 1, 25. See, also, Padilla v. Rumsfeld 124 SCt 2711 (2001).
83. See, for example, H.J. Abraham and B.A. Perry, Freedom and the Court (2003, 8th edn.);
84. J. O'Neill, 'Marbury v. Madison at 200: Revisionist Scholarship and the Legitimacy of American Judicial Review' (2002) 65 Modern Law Rev. 792.
85. But see, for example, T.R.S. Allan, Law, Liberty, and Justice: Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism (1993).
86. H.K. Bhabha, 'Introduction' in Nation and Narration, ed. H.K. Bhabha (1990) 3.
87. J. Vernon, 'Notes Towards an Introduction' in Re-Reading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England's Long Nineteenth Century, ed. J. Vernon (1996) 2.
88. For a historical account of the self-conception of the higher judiciary in this country, see R. Stevens, Law and Politics: The House of Lords as a Judicial Body 1800-1976 (1978).
89. See, for example, Sir H. Woolf, 'Droit Public English Style' [1995] Public Law 57;
90. Sir H. Woolf, 'Public Law Private Law: Why the Divide? A Personal View' [1986] Public Law 220;
91. Steyn, Public Law op. cit. (2004), n. 52;
92. Lord Steyn, 'Deference: A Tangled Story' [2005] Public Law 346;
93. Sir S. Sedley, 'The Sound of Silence: Constitutional Law without a Constitution' (1994) 110 Law Q. Rev. 270;
94. Sir S. Sedley, 'Human Rights A Twenty-First Century Agenda' [1995] Public Law 386.
95. See, for example, R.H. Pildes, 'Foreword: The Constitutionalization of Democratic Politics' (2004) 118 Harvard Law Rev. 29.
96. For commentary on common law constitutionalism outside the United Kingdom, see M.D. Walters, 'Common Law, Reason, and Sovereign Will' (2003) 53 University of Toronto Law J. 65.
97. See T. Poole, 'Back to the Future? Unearthing the Theory of Common Law Constitutionalism' (2003) 23 Ox. J. of Legal Studies 435.
98. See, also, Tomkins, Ox. J. of Legal Studies op. cit., n. 58.
99. See, for example, T.R.S. Allan, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (2001).
100. See, also, T. Poole, 'Dogmatic Liberalism? T.R.S. Allan and the Common Law Constitution' (2002) 65 Modern Law Rev. 463.
101. See, in particular, F.A. Hayek, Law, Liberty and Morality, Vol. 1, Rules and Order (1973).
102. Sir J. Laws, 'The Constitution: Morals and Rights' [1996] Public Law 622.
103. Sir J. Laws, 'Wednesbury' in The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord, eds. C.F. Forsyth and I. Hare (1998) 199 (emphasis in original).
104. Sir J. Laws, 'Law and Democracy' [1995] Public Law 72, at 84.
105. See, also, Sir J. Laws, 'Public Law and Employment Law: Abuse of Power' [1997] Public Law 455, at 455.
106. T. Poole, 'Questioning Common Law Constitutionalism' (2005) 25 Legal Studies 142.
107. J.A.G. Griffith, 'The Brave New World of Sir John Laws' (2000) 63 Modem Law Rev. 159;
108. Tomkins, Modem Law Rev. op. cit., n. 58.
109. R. Rawlings, 'Review, Revenge and Retreat' (2005) 68 Modern Law Rev. 378, at 380.
110. id., p. 405.
111. R (Abu Rideh) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123.
112. McCrudden, Modern Law Rev. op. cit., n. 53, p. 501.
113. A.-M. Slaughter, 'A Typology of Transjudicial Communication' (1994) 29 University of Richmond Law Rev. 99.
114. McCrudden, University of Richmond Law Rev. op. cit., n. 53, p. 530.
115. Slaughter, University of Richmond Law Rev. op. cit., n. 80, p. 132.
116. For a similarly positive account of a related phenomenon - the growing instance of the use of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority and the 'mixing' of laws from different legal systems - see H.P. Glenn, 'Persuasive Authority' (1987) 32 McGill Law J. 261.
117. See, for example, R v. Halliday, Ex p Zadig [1917] A.C. 260; Ronnfeldt v. Philips (1918) 34 Tulane Law Rev. 356;
118. Liversidge v. Anderson, Tulane Law Rev. op. cit., n. 43; Chandler v. DPP [1964] A.C. 763; R v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, ex p Hosenball [1977] l W.L.R. 766; R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All E.R. 319.
119. This judicial reticence might have been part of a more general caution in the application of the Human Rights in the first few years after its introduction: see Stevens, Tulane Law Rev. op. cit., n. 22, pp. 112-16.
120. See, for example, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Rehman [2001] UKHL 47; R (on the application of Gillan and Quinton) v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] EWHC Admin 2545; A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1502.
121. C. Gearty, 'Civil Liberties and Human Rights' in Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution, eds. N. Bamforth and P. Leyland (2003) 387-8.
122. R (on the application of Abbasi) v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 at [66].
123. Steyn, Public Law in A Multi-Layered Constitution op. cit (2004), n. 52, p. 9.
124. id., p. 15.
125. id., p. 8.
126. A. Lester, 'The Overseas Trade in the American Bill of Rights' (1988) 88 Columbia Lav Rev. 537, at 561.
127. See, also, R.B. Lillich, 'The Constitutional and International Human Rights' (1989) 83 Am. J. of International Law 851, at 855: 'If American constitutionalism has contributed greatly to the development of international human rights law, the reverse, alas, has yet to occur';
128. L. Henkin, 'Constitutional Rights and Human Rights' (1978) 13 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Rev. 593.
129. The stance of the United States Supreme Court has, if anything, hardened on this issue since these articles were written: see, for example, Stanford. Kentucky 492 US 361 (1989).
130. The American constitutional scholar Kim Lane Scheppele has called this process 'aversive constitutionalism'. She argues that a nation often develops its constitutional law by referring to examples of behaviour in other nations that is said to be inconsistent with the first nation's constitutional values: see 'Aspirational and Aversive Constitutionalism: The Case for Studying Cross-Constitutional Influence Through Negative Models' (2003) 1 International J. of Constitutional Law 296.
131. Slaughter, International J. of Constitutional Law op. cit., n. 80, p. 133.
132. Steyn, International J. of Constitutional Law op. cit. (2004), n. 52, p. 2.
133. See also, for example, R (on the application of M) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 324.
134. See, for example, J. Hiebert, 'Parliamentary Review of Terrorism Measures' (2005) 68 Modern Law Rev. 676.
135. C. Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (1985) 7.
136. See, also, G. Agamben, State of Exception, tr. K. Attell (2005).
137. See the cases in n. 83 above.
138. Compare Sedley, State of Exception op. cit., n. 1, p. 10: the literal rendering of the phrase [marge d'appréciation] has enabled it to acquire a protean significance roughly equivalent to a doctrine of simple deference. In spite of efforts on all hands to stop it happening, it continues to be used in relation to domestic acts and omissions under scrutiny in our courts.
139. See, also, R v. British Broadcasting Corporation, ex p Prolife Alliance [2003] UKHL 23, para. 75-6 (per Lord Hoffmann);
140. A. Mowbray, Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights (2001) 632-46.
141. But see, for example, T.C. Ellington, 'Won't Get Fooled Again: The Paranoid Style of the Nation State' (2003) 38 Government and Opposition 436.
142. See, for example, Justice Scalia's dissent in Rasul v. Bush 542 US 1 (2004).
143. Abbasi, Government and Opposition op. cit., n. 87, at [106] and [7].
144. See, also, R (A and others) v. Home Secretary [2002] EWCA Civ 1502;
145. Abu Rideh, Government and Opposition op. cit., n. 20.
146. R (on the application of Gillan and Quintan) v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] EWHC Admin 2545, at [62].
147. See, for example, U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernism (1992);
148. A. Giddens, 'Risk and Responsibility' (1999) 62 Modern Law Rev. 1;
149. B. Hudson, Justice in the Risk Society (2003).
150. See E. Fisher, 'The Rise of the Risk Commonwealth and the Challenge to Administrative Law' [2003] Public Law 455.
151. See, for example, A v. Home Secretary, E. Fisher, Public Law op. cit., n. 3, [26] and [27] (per Lord Bingham).
152. See, for example, the claims surrounding the recent invasion of Iraq: United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community 's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (7 July 2004);
153. Lord Hutton, Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G. (28 January 2004).
154. See, also, L. Scott in A v. Home Secretary, id., at [154].
155. See, for example, M. Shapiro, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (1981).
156. D. Dyzenhaus, 'An Unfortunate Outburst of Anglo-Saxon Parochialism' (2005) 68 Modern Law Rev. 673.
157. See, for example, Leader, 'A Law Unto Themselves' Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2001: Such [European] treaties, and laws based on them, create what is, in effect, a politicised judiciary. The politicisation is not along party lines - our judges are scrupulous. It is rather the imposition on Britain of a Continental form of law that invites judges to interpret individual cases in the light of political generalisations about what is right and wrong.
158. See, also, Stevens, Daily Telegraph op. cit., n. 22, pp. 129-36.
159. A v. Home Secretary, Daily Telegraph op. cit., n. 3, at [95].
160. P.M. McFadden, 'Provincialism in US Courts' (1995) 81 Cornell Law Rev. 4, 14.
161. Slaughter, Cornell Law Rev. op. cit., n. 80, p. 118.
162. McCrudden, Cornell Law Rev. op. cit., n. 53, p. 519.
163. Poole, Cornell Law Rev. op. cit., n. 68, pp. 200-3.
164. On ancient constitutionalism see, for example, Pocock, Cornell Law Rev. op. cit., n. 23;
165. G. Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution (1992);
166. M.P. Thompson, 'The History of Fundamental Law in Political Thought from the French Wars of Religion to the American Revolution' (1986) 91 Am. Historical Rev. 1103;
167. J.W. Tubbs, The Common Law Mind: Medieval and Early Modern Conceptions (2000) ch. 7;
168. M.I. Finlay, "The Ancestral Constitution' in his The Use and Abuse of History (1975).
169. J.A.G. Griffith, "The Brave New World of Sir John Laws' (2000) 63 Modern Law Rev. 159, 159.
170. Of course, this phenomenon is not entirely new. Judges have sometimes in the past appealed to a wider, more generalist audience: see, for example, Lord Diplock's speech in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister of the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374. My argument is that this style of judgment is likely to become more prominent in the current era as claims proliferate about the politicized nature of the judiciary.
171. See, for example, B. A. Perry, The Priestly Tribe: The Supreme Court 's Image in the American Mind (1999) ch. 3.
172. It is interesting that Lord Hoffmann himself spoke out against the development of the House of Lords along the lines of a Supreme Court: see Lord Hoffmann, 'Human Rights and the House of Lords' (1999) 62 Modern Law Rev. 159.
173. See, also, his COMBAR lecture, 'Separation of Powers' [2002] Judical Rev. 137.
174. Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.
175. See Rawlings, Judical Rev. op. cit., n. 76, for an analysis of the growing phenomenon of what the author calls 'legal politics'.
176. For a similar perspective on United States Supreme Court decision-making see C.W. Clayton and H. Gillman (eds.), Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches (1999).
177. For a justification and elaboration of the deployment of 'political jurisprudence' techniques in the sphere of public law, see M. Shapiro and A. Stone-Sweet, On Law, Politics, and Judicialization (2002).
178. See, for example, L.B. Tremblay, 'The Legitimacy of Judicial Review: The Limits of Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures' (2005) 3 International J. of Constitutional Law 617;
179. T.R. Hickman, 'Constitutional Dialogue, Constitutional Theories and the Human Rights Act 1998' [2005] Public Law 306;
180. K. Roach, 'Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures' (2001) 80 Can. Bar Rev. 481;
181. K. Roach, 'Common Law Bills of Rights as Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures' (2005) 55
182. University of Toronto Law J. 733;
183. S. Gardbaum, 'The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism' (2001) 49 Am. J. of Comparative Law 707;
184. M. Tushnet, 'New Forms of Judicial Review and the Persistence of Rights- and Democracy-Based Worries' (2003) 38 Wake Forest Law Rev. 813.
185. A v. Home Secretary, M. Tushnet, Wake Forest Law Rev. op. cit., n. 3, [97].
186. See Lord Bingham, id., at [35]. See also, for example, Report of Council of Europe Commissioner on control orders (2005).
187. For an analysis which situates judicial decision-making under the Human Rights Act within a wider institutional (and social) context, see C. O'Cinneide, 'Democracy, Rights and the Constitution New Directions in the Human Rights Era' (2004) Current Legal Problems 175.
188. See, for example, Shapiro, Current Legal Problems op. cit., n. 55.
189. See, for example, G. Agamben, State of Exception (2005);
190. G. Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1995);
191. S. Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real (2002);
192. J. Baudrillard, The Spirit of Terrorism, tr. C. Turner (2003, rev. edn.).
193. Compare Tony Blair's 'rules have changed' briefing of 5 August 2005, in which the Prime Minister warned courts not to intervene with the government's new rules regarding deportation. 'Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary amending the Human Rights Act, in respect of the interpretation of the ECHR'. See, also, 'Blair to curb human rights in war on terror' Daily Telegraph, 6 August 2005.