Explicit argumentation as a supervisory tool for decision making in child protection cases involving human rights issues

This paper addresses the problems often faced by social workers and their supervisors in decision making where human rights considerations and child protection concerns collide. High profile court cases in the United Kingdom and Europe have consistently called for social workers to convey more clarity when justifying their reasons for interfering with human rights in child protection cases. The themes emerging from these case law decisions imply that social workers need to be better at giving reasons and evidence in more explicit ways to support any actions they propose which cause interference with Convention Rights. Toulmin (1958, 1985) offers a structured approach to argumentation which may have relevance to the supervision of child protection cases when social workers and managers are required to balance these human rights considerations. One of the key challenges in this balancing act is the need for decision makers to feel confident that any interventions resulting in the interference of human rights are both justified and proportionate. Toulmin’s work has already been shown to have relevance for assisting social workers navigate pathways through cases involving competing ethical and moral demands (Osmo and Landau, 2001) and more recently to human rights and decision making in child protection (Duffy et al, 2006). Toulmin’s model takes the practitioner through a series of stages where any argument or proposed recommendation (claim) is subjected to intense critical analysis involving exposition of its strengths and weaknesses. The author therefore proposes that explicit argumentation (Osmo and Landau, 2001) may help supervisors and practitioners towards safer and more confident decision making in child protection cases involving the interference of the human rights of children and parents. In addition to highlighting the broader context of human rights currently permeating child protection decision making, the paper will include case material to practically demonstrate the application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation to the supervision context. In this way the paper adopts a strong practice approach in helping to assist practitioners with the problems and dilemmas they may come up against in decision making in complex cases.

A Human Rights Perspective on Citizen Participation in the EU's Governance of New Technologies

This article considers the EU’s approach to citizen participation in the governance of new technologies from a human rights perspective. Noting that there is a dearth of insight on the interplay between citizen participation and human rights, the article sketches the essence of its own human rights perspective as being about empowerment. This perspective is brought to bear on EU discourse on citizen participation in the governance of new technologies. Analysis of the discourse—comprising law, citizen participation in EU governance and citizen/science relations, the ‘public understanding of science and technology’, risk and bioethics—reveals a disempowering ‘deficit model’ of citizens in need of education through their participation in governance. The analysis thus suggests that citizen participation in EU governance of new technologies is not truly informed by human rights, but is instead used as a legitimating technique.

Realising political equality: the European Court of Human Rights and positive obligations in a democracy'

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) speaks of the importance of an “effective political democracy” in its Preamble, though it is only in Article 3 of Protocol 1 (P1-3) that we find a right to free elections. This paper discusses the role of “positive obligations” under P1-3. This paper outlines the positive obligations in P1-3 focusing on obligations where the state is required to do more than just change the law. This may mean providing resources or facilities, adopting regulatory frameworks or creating new institutions. The paper highlights specific positive obligations that need to be further developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Sometimes these can be developed by analogy with positive obligations recognised in other areas of ECtHR jurisprudence. However, beyond these cases, states should ensure that members of vulnerable and disadvantaged minorities are able to participate in the electoral process and should ensure that dominant political groups cannot abuse their political power to exclude other parties unfairly. This is necessary to realise equal political rights. The second section of this paper sketches some preliminary points about the Strasbourg institutions’ approach to P1-3. After that, the third section identifies circumstances where the ECtHR should apply a more intense scrutiny in P1-3 cases. The fourth, fifth and sixth sections look at positive obligations relating to the right to vote, the right to run for election and the regulation of political parties.

The Victim Test under the Human Rights Act 1998 and its Implications for Domestic Violence Cases

The European Court of Human Rights has now clearly established that domestic violence constitutes a human rights issue. However, there are a number of difficulties involved in using the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to violence against women in the home. One of these obstacles is the restrictive test of standing found in the Act, which is problematic as regards an ‘unseen crime’ such as domestic violence. This article examines this test of standing and the difficulties it poses in the context of violence against women in the home. It then considers alternative models for the standing requirement and assesses whether a change in the test of standing would produce beneficial results as regards the issue of domestic violence.