Showing posts from September, 2022

‘The experiences of migrants demonstrate that human rights are not universal and that they do not address the needs of the most vulnerable.’

Human rights law, designed to protect the needs of an individual against a State, can overlook the unique experiences of migrants. Political discourse and stringent standards in the rights protection may, therefore, fail to address the needs of the most vulnerable. This is exemplified in the context of deportation and/or extradition in relation to Article 8 and Article 3 ECHR. This essay will (1) discuss the Article 8 and Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the experiences of migrants (2) explore the statement in relation to Article 8 and (3) explore the statement in relation to Article 3. Overall, it can be said that Article 8 fails to protect migrants to a greater extent than Article 3, but each right has room for development.  Convention Rights and Migrant Experience Article 8 and Article 3 both have significant impacts on the experiences of migrants, especially in deportation and/or extradition contexts. The former stipulates a right to respect for family and private life, w

‘The underlying purpose of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel is to prevent an unconscionable result.’ To what extent, if at all, is this an (a) accurate and (b) useful way of justifying the rules concerning both the generation of a proprietary estoppel claim and the fashioning of an appropriate remedy?

Proprietary estoppel is a method of informally acquiring rights in land. This essay will (1) outline the doctrine, (2) discuss the accuracy of the statement in relation to generating claims and fashioning remedies and (3) evaluate whether unconscionability represents a useful justification for the doctrine. Overall, the statement is accurate and conceptualising unconscionability as the justification of proprietary estoppel suitably reflects the nature of the doctrine.  (1) Proprietary Estoppel (PE) Formality saturates land law. S2 LP(MP)A 1989 establishes minimum levels of formality required for creating or transferring interests in land, with s53(1) LPA 1925 similarly reflecting the focus on formalities in land law. Most interests require additional formalities such as deeds, and, for registered land, registration under ss.25-27 and Schedule 2 LRA 2002. Against this backdrop, the judge-made doctrine of PE is a noticeable exception to formality.  The doctrine can act as a defence (Ma

Why do imprisonment rates vary between different countries?

A multitude of factors influence imprisonment rates, and it would be near impossible to administer an effective analysis encompassing all variables. This essay will therefore utilise Lacey et al.’s (2017) framework of factors, broadly focusing on three core reasons why imprisonment rates vary: crime rates, cultural dynamics and political economy. On balance, it is argued that imprisonment rates are influenced to the greatest extent by political economy, as this is inherently entangled with the other factors. Crime Rates Perhaps the most obvious explanation of imprisonment rates lies in crime itself. Crime, though a superficially straightforward concept, is elusive as to its meaning and statistics on crime do not necessarily illuminate the rich nuanced narratives of crime itself. Nonetheless, crime and imprisonment rates are intrinsically connected, with imprisonment as a necessary corollary of certain crimes in almost every jurisdiction. For instance, a study of US data by Enns (2016)