| _version_ |
1860799820986318848
|
| building |
INTELEK Repository
|
| collection |
Online Access
|
| collectionurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072
|
| date |
2014-05-05 15:32:50
|
| format |
Restricted Document
|
| id |
7526
|
| institution |
UniSZA
|
| internalnotes |
1. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed in the Year 1780, and Now First Published. By Jeremy Bentham (London: printed for T. Payne, and Son, 1789), 6. 2. Ibid, 296. 3. Detailed discussions on the interpretation of the term ‘international law, see Mark W Janis, “Individuals as Subjects of International Law,” Cornell International Law Journal 17 (1984): 62 -64. 4. The word ‘subjects’ in this context refers to persons or entities to which international law applies. 5. Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim, Oppenheim’s International Law: Volume 1 Peace, ed. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, vol. 1, 9th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008), 16. 6. Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 13 - 14. 7. Javaid Rehman, International Human Rights Law: A Practical Approach (Harlow: Longman, 2003), 14. 8. Dualism is based on the theory that mind and matter are separate. 9. Monism originates from the theory which denies any duality of mind and matter. Thus, international law and domestic law are not separate. 10. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 181 - 188. 11. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 31 - 33. 12. Abdul Ghafur Hamid, “Judicial Application of International Law in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis,” Asia-Pacifi c Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Vol. 1 (2005): 196 - 198. 13. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states that ‘The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (a) International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules recognised by the contesting States; (b) International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) The general principles of law recognised by civilised nations; …’. 14. The VCLT was adopted in Vienna on 22 May 1969 and opened for signature on 23 May 1969 by the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties. It has entered into force on 27 January 1980 and as at 28 June 2011, the VCLT has been ratifi ed by 111 States. 15. Arnold Duncan McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 15. 16. Supra note 10, 189 - 192. 17. [1990] 2 A.C. 418. 18. Ibid, 420. 19. Incorporation into domestic law can take three forms. For details see supra note 6, 82. 20. Philip Sales and Joanne Clement, “International Law in Domestic Courts: The Developing Framework,” Law Quarterly Review, no. 124 (2008): 389. 21. Supra note 10, 188. 22. Peter Leyland, The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis (Oxford: Hart, 2007), 53. 23. Supra note 6, 81. 24. Further details on the list of international treaties ratifi ed by the United Kingdom see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet, (accessed 16 March 2010). 25. ICCPR was approved by the Third Committee of the General Assembly in December 1966 and later came into force in 1976. Further details see supra note 7, 62 - 103. 26. Helen Fenwick and Gavin Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 1. 27. Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol, Media Law, 5th ed. (London: Penguin, 2008), 42. 28. (1979 – 80) 1 E.H.R.R. 737. 29. Ibid, 754. 30. For detailed discussion on human rights regimes, see Burns H Weston, Robin Ann Lukes and Kelly M Hnatt, ‘Regional Human Rights Regimes: A Comparison and Appraisal’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transanational Law, 20 (1987), 585: pp. 592 - 614. 31. Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6 - 23; Kent Greenawalt, “Free Speech Justifi cations,” Columbia Law Review 89 (1989): 131; Supra note 26, 12 - 19. 32. [2000] 2 A.C. 115 33. Ibid, 126. 34. [1993] A.C. 534. 35. Ibid, 547. 36. (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407 37. Ibid, 419. 38. Arthur Henry Robertson and John Graham Merrills, Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights, 4th ed. (Manchester, Eng: Manchester University Press, 1996), 120 - 124. 39. Supra, note 30, 588 - 589. 40. Helen Fenwick, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 1. 41. Supra note 10, 189 - 192. 42. Supra note 27, 42. 43. (1979 - 80) 1 E.H.R.R. 524 44. (1979 - 80) 2 E.H.R.R. 245 45. Ibid, 278 – 280. 46. Anthony Aust, “United Kingdom,” in The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study, ed. David Sloss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 486. 47. Long title to the HRA. 48. Section 1(1) provides that the phrase ‘Convention rights’ to cover ‘Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol, as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention’. 49. Alastair N Brown, Human Rights Act 1998, Greens annotated acts (Edinburgh: W. Green, 2003), 4 - 5. 50. Ibid. 51. Human Rights Act 1998, 2nd ed., Current Law Statutes Annotated Reprints (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), 42-8. 52. [1990] 1 AC 109. 53. Ibid. 283. 54. Supra note 31, 40. 55. Supra note 52, 178. 56. Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 4th ed. (London: Blackstone, 2007), 4 - 5. 57. Supra note 51, 42 - 43. 58. Section 2 of the HRA. 59. Section 3(1) of the HRA. 60. Section 6 of the HRA. 61. Section 7 of the HRA. 62. Article 19 provides that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas though any media and regardless of frontiers’. 63. The UDHR is a non-binding declaration and was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 as part of the International Bill of Human Rights. 64. [2003] 1 A.C. 247. 65. Supra note 51, 42 - 25. 66. 31 August 1957. 67. Supra note 12, 197. 68. [1976] 2 MLJ 112. 69. Federal List means the First List of the Ninth Schedule – Article 160(2) of the FC. 70. Concurrent List means the Third List of the Ninth Schedule – Article 160(2) of the FC. 71. [1963] 1 MLJ 355. 72. Ibid, 359 73. Abdul Ghafur Hamid, “Treaty-Making Power in Federal States with Special Reference to the Malaysian Position,” Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law Vol. 30 (2003): 80 - 82. 74. Supra note 12. 75. Heliliah Haji Yusof, “Internal Application of International Law in Malaysia and Singapore,” Singapore Law Review 1 (1969): 65. 76. Ibid. 77. CRC was acceded on 17th February 1995 whilst CEDAW was on 5th July 1995. For details see Malaysia’s status at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/ Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet, (accessed 16 March 2010). 78. Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo, “Malaysia’s First Report to the CEDAW Committee: A Landmark Event for Women’s Rights in Malaysia,” Asian Yearbook of International Law 13 (2007): 303. 79. CRPD was signed on 8th April 2008. 80. Elizabeth Looi and Shanon Shah, Human Rights: What’s Stopping Malaysia? (The Nut Graph, December 10, 2008), http://www.thenutgraph.com/print/1226, (accessed March 17, 2010). 81. Ibid. 82. Ralph Wilde, “NGO Proposals for an Asia-Pacifi c Human Rights System,” Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 1 (1998): 137. 83. The VDPA is a human rights declaration adopted by consensus at the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993 in Vienna, Austria. 84. Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Human Rights and the Constitution,” in Human Rights and the National Commission, ed. S. Sothi Rachagan and Ramdas Tikamdas (HAKAM, 1999), 140. 85. The House of Lords in Reynolds v. Times Newspaper Ltd [2001] 2 A.C. 127 at page 175 confi ned political speech only to ‘statements made about the actions and qualities of those currently or formerly elected to Parliament and those with immediate aspirations to be members, so far as those actions and qualities directly affected their capacity … to meet their public responsibilities’. 86. In the leading case of Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407, it was ruled that political speech is the core of a democratic society that should be given more protection by the courts. This ruling has been followed by the English courts in other cases including Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home De�partment [2000] 2 A.C. 115 and Reynolds v. Times Newspaper Ltd [2001] 2 A.C. 127. 87. Clause 3 is not related with freedom of expression because it restricts the right to form associations under Article 10(1)(c) of the Constitution. 88. Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996), 42 - 45. 89. Ibid, 169. 90. [1976] 2 MLJ 229. 91. Ibid p. 230. 92. Shad Saleem Faruqi, “The All-Powerful Executive”, October 1, 2005, 2, http:// www.sun2surf.com/articlePrint.cfm?id=11381, (accessed August 23, 2010). 93. [1971] 2 MLJ 108 94. AIR [1950] SC 27 95. Ibid p. 111. 96. Amendment I of the United States Constitution provides that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. 97. Article 4(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that “The validity of any law shall not be questioned on the ground that – it imposes such restrictions as are men�tioned in Article 10(2) but those restrictions were not deemed necessary or ex�pedient by Parliament for the purpose mentioned in that Article”. 98 The cases are City Council of George Town v. Government of Penang [1967] 1 MLJ 169; Selangor Pilots Association v. Government of Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ 66; PP v. Datuk Haji Harun [1977] 1 MLJ 180; Teh Cheng Poh v. PP [1979] 1 MLJ 50; Malaysian Bar v. Government of Malaysia [1986] 2 MLJ 225; Menon v. Government of Malaysia [1987] 2 MLJ 642; PP v. Dato’ Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311; Mamat bin Daud v. Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119; Haji Nordin Salleh & Haji Wan Mohamed Najib Wan Mohamed v. Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan [1992] 1 MLJ 143. 99 Abdul Aziz Bari and Farid Sufi an Shuaib, Constitution of Malaysia: Text and Commentary (Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall, 2004), 34. 100 Abdul Aziz Bari, Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction (Kuala Lumpur: Other Press, 2003), 153 - 156. 101 Supra note 99, 33.
|
| originalfilename |
3064-01-FH02-FUHA-16-05465.pdf
|
| person |
Marina
|
| recordtype |
oai_dc
|
| resourceurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=7526
|
| spelling |
7526 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=7526 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072 Restricted Document Article Journal application/pdf 1.6 Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20 Paper Capture Plug-in Marina 2014-05-05 15:32:50 108 3064-01-FH02-FUHA-16-05465.pdf UniSZA Private Access A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression UUM Journal of Legal Studies International law, particularly treaties on human rights, has great infl uence on the development of the right to freedom of expression. The application of international treaties is very much dependant on the constitutions of individual countries and these constitutions to a large extent are dissimilar from one to another. The position in the United Kingdom is relatively unique since the country has no codifi ed written constitution to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression and as a result it was regarded as residual in nature. Nonetheless, the provisions of the international treaties, particularly the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) have altered this position and accordingly freedom of expression has been formally incorporated into the UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Meanwhile, the international human rights treaties is considered to have less infl uence in Malaysia arguably since the country has a written constitution (the Federal Constitution) that contains a specifi c part on fundamental liberties including the right to freedom of expression. 2 1 17-38 1. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed in the Year 1780, and Now First Published. By Jeremy Bentham (London: printed for T. Payne, and Son, 1789), 6. 2. Ibid, 296. 3. Detailed discussions on the interpretation of the term ‘international law, see Mark W Janis, “Individuals as Subjects of International Law,” Cornell International Law Journal 17 (1984): 62 -64. 4. The word ‘subjects’ in this context refers to persons or entities to which international law applies. 5. Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim, Oppenheim’s International Law: Volume 1 Peace, ed. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, vol. 1, 9th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008), 16. 6. Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 13 - 14. 7. Javaid Rehman, International Human Rights Law: A Practical Approach (Harlow: Longman, 2003), 14. 8. Dualism is based on the theory that mind and matter are separate. 9. Monism originates from the theory which denies any duality of mind and matter. Thus, international law and domestic law are not separate. 10. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 181 - 188. 11. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 31 - 33. 12. Abdul Ghafur Hamid, “Judicial Application of International Law in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis,” Asia-Pacifi c Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Vol. 1 (2005): 196 - 198. 13. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states that ‘The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (a) International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules recognised by the contesting States; (b) International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) The general principles of law recognised by civilised nations; …’. 14. The VCLT was adopted in Vienna on 22 May 1969 and opened for signature on 23 May 1969 by the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties. It has entered into force on 27 January 1980 and as at 28 June 2011, the VCLT has been ratifi ed by 111 States. 15. Arnold Duncan McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 15. 16. Supra note 10, 189 - 192. 17. [1990] 2 A.C. 418. 18. Ibid, 420. 19. Incorporation into domestic law can take three forms. For details see supra note 6, 82. 20. Philip Sales and Joanne Clement, “International Law in Domestic Courts: The Developing Framework,” Law Quarterly Review, no. 124 (2008): 389. 21. Supra note 10, 188. 22. Peter Leyland, The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis (Oxford: Hart, 2007), 53. 23. Supra note 6, 81. 24. Further details on the list of international treaties ratifi ed by the United Kingdom see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet, (accessed 16 March 2010). 25. ICCPR was approved by the Third Committee of the General Assembly in December 1966 and later came into force in 1976. Further details see supra note 7, 62 - 103. 26. Helen Fenwick and Gavin Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 1. 27. Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol, Media Law, 5th ed. (London: Penguin, 2008), 42. 28. (1979 – 80) 1 E.H.R.R. 737. 29. Ibid, 754. 30. For detailed discussion on human rights regimes, see Burns H Weston, Robin Ann Lukes and Kelly M Hnatt, ‘Regional Human Rights Regimes: A Comparison and Appraisal’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transanational Law, 20 (1987), 585: pp. 592 - 614. 31. Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6 - 23; Kent Greenawalt, “Free Speech Justifi cations,” Columbia Law Review 89 (1989): 131; Supra note 26, 12 - 19. 32. [2000] 2 A.C. 115 33. Ibid, 126. 34. [1993] A.C. 534. 35. Ibid, 547. 36. (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407 37. Ibid, 419. 38. Arthur Henry Robertson and John Graham Merrills, Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights, 4th ed. (Manchester, Eng: Manchester University Press, 1996), 120 - 124. 39. Supra, note 30, 588 - 589. 40. Helen Fenwick, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 1. 41. Supra note 10, 189 - 192. 42. Supra note 27, 42. 43. (1979 - 80) 1 E.H.R.R. 524 44. (1979 - 80) 2 E.H.R.R. 245 45. Ibid, 278 – 280. 46. Anthony Aust, “United Kingdom,” in The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study, ed. David Sloss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 486. 47. Long title to the HRA. 48. Section 1(1) provides that the phrase ‘Convention rights’ to cover ‘Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol, as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention’. 49. Alastair N Brown, Human Rights Act 1998, Greens annotated acts (Edinburgh: W. Green, 2003), 4 - 5. 50. Ibid. 51. Human Rights Act 1998, 2nd ed., Current Law Statutes Annotated Reprints (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), 42-8. 52. [1990] 1 AC 109. 53. Ibid. 283. 54. Supra note 31, 40. 55. Supra note 52, 178. 56. Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 4th ed. (London: Blackstone, 2007), 4 - 5. 57. Supra note 51, 42 - 43. 58. Section 2 of the HRA. 59. Section 3(1) of the HRA. 60. Section 6 of the HRA. 61. Section 7 of the HRA. 62. Article 19 provides that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas though any media and regardless of frontiers’. 63. The UDHR is a non-binding declaration and was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 as part of the International Bill of Human Rights. 64. [2003] 1 A.C. 247. 65. Supra note 51, 42 - 25. 66. 31 August 1957. 67. Supra note 12, 197. 68. [1976] 2 MLJ 112. 69. Federal List means the First List of the Ninth Schedule – Article 160(2) of the FC. 70. Concurrent List means the Third List of the Ninth Schedule – Article 160(2) of the FC. 71. [1963] 1 MLJ 355. 72. Ibid, 359 73. Abdul Ghafur Hamid, “Treaty-Making Power in Federal States with Special Reference to the Malaysian Position,” Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law Vol. 30 (2003): 80 - 82. 74. Supra note 12. 75. Heliliah Haji Yusof, “Internal Application of International Law in Malaysia and Singapore,” Singapore Law Review 1 (1969): 65. 76. Ibid. 77. CRC was acceded on 17th February 1995 whilst CEDAW was on 5th July 1995. For details see Malaysia’s status at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/ Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet, (accessed 16 March 2010). 78. Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo, “Malaysia’s First Report to the CEDAW Committee: A Landmark Event for Women’s Rights in Malaysia,” Asian Yearbook of International Law 13 (2007): 303. 79. CRPD was signed on 8th April 2008. 80. Elizabeth Looi and Shanon Shah, Human Rights: What’s Stopping Malaysia? (The Nut Graph, December 10, 2008), http://www.thenutgraph.com/print/1226, (accessed March 17, 2010). 81. Ibid. 82. Ralph Wilde, “NGO Proposals for an Asia-Pacifi c Human Rights System,” Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 1 (1998): 137. 83. The VDPA is a human rights declaration adopted by consensus at the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993 in Vienna, Austria. 84. Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Human Rights and the Constitution,” in Human Rights and the National Commission, ed. S. Sothi Rachagan and Ramdas Tikamdas (HAKAM, 1999), 140. 85. The House of Lords in Reynolds v. Times Newspaper Ltd [2001] 2 A.C. 127 at page 175 confi ned political speech only to ‘statements made about the actions and qualities of those currently or formerly elected to Parliament and those with immediate aspirations to be members, so far as those actions and qualities directly affected their capacity … to meet their public responsibilities’. 86. In the leading case of Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407, it was ruled that political speech is the core of a democratic society that should be given more protection by the courts. This ruling has been followed by the English courts in other cases including Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home De�partment [2000] 2 A.C. 115 and Reynolds v. Times Newspaper Ltd [2001] 2 A.C. 127. 87. Clause 3 is not related with freedom of expression because it restricts the right to form associations under Article 10(1)(c) of the Constitution. 88. Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996), 42 - 45. 89. Ibid, 169. 90. [1976] 2 MLJ 229. 91. Ibid p. 230. 92. Shad Saleem Faruqi, “The All-Powerful Executive”, October 1, 2005, 2, http:// www.sun2surf.com/articlePrint.cfm?id=11381, (accessed August 23, 2010). 93. [1971] 2 MLJ 108 94. AIR [1950] SC 27 95. Ibid p. 111. 96. Amendment I of the United States Constitution provides that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. 97. Article 4(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that “The validity of any law shall not be questioned on the ground that – it imposes such restrictions as are men�tioned in Article 10(2) but those restrictions were not deemed necessary or ex�pedient by Parliament for the purpose mentioned in that Article”. 98 The cases are City Council of George Town v. Government of Penang [1967] 1 MLJ 169; Selangor Pilots Association v. Government of Malaysia [1975] 2 MLJ 66; PP v. Datuk Haji Harun [1977] 1 MLJ 180; Teh Cheng Poh v. PP [1979] 1 MLJ 50; Malaysian Bar v. Government of Malaysia [1986] 2 MLJ 225; Menon v. Government of Malaysia [1987] 2 MLJ 642; PP v. Dato’ Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311; Mamat bin Daud v. Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119; Haji Nordin Salleh & Haji Wan Mohamed Najib Wan Mohamed v. Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan [1992] 1 MLJ 143. 99 Abdul Aziz Bari and Farid Sufi an Shuaib, Constitution of Malaysia: Text and Commentary (Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall, 2004), 34. 100 Abdul Aziz Bari, Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction (Kuala Lumpur: Other Press, 2003), 153 - 156. 101 Supra note 99, 33.
|
| spellingShingle |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| summary |
International law, particularly treaties on human rights, has great infl uence on the development of the right to freedom of expression. The application of international treaties is very much dependant on the constitutions of individual countries and these constitutions to a large extent are dissimilar from one to another. The position in the United Kingdom is relatively unique since the country has no codifi ed written constitution to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression and as a result it was regarded as residual in nature. Nonetheless, the provisions of the international treaties, particularly the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) have altered this position and accordingly freedom of expression has been formally incorporated into the UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Meanwhile, the international human rights treaties is considered to have less infl uence in Malaysia arguably since the country has a written constitution (the Federal Constitution) that contains a specifi c part on fundamental liberties including the right to freedom of expression.
|
| title |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| title_full |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| title_fullStr |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| title_short |
A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of the United Kingdom and Malaysia in Respect of Freedom of Expression
|
| title_sort |
comparative analysis of the practice of the united kingdom and malaysia in respect of freedom of expression
|