The Law Assignment and Economics Assignment

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 1
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Student’s name
Part one: The law assignment
The courts when they encounter basic legislative provisions that seem to be conflicting
with conventions rights, the courts are compelled to use and interpret some interlocking
provisions regarding the Human Rights Act (HRA)that prompts them to engage in a conversation
with both the executive and the legislature. According to section 2, it stipulates that the courts
have an obligation to have regards for European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR)
jurisprudence1. Section 3 dictates that if there is a possibility, the courts should seek an
interpretation of the thought offending provision in the parliament that renders it compatible with
the convention rights. However, if the courts fail to establish the compatibility, they are backed
by the section 4 to announce the offending provision in the parliament as being incompatible. In
section 6, the courts as public entities are compelled to abide by the convention rights2. Since
section 6 stipulates that the courts are not allowed to breach that duty if the way in which they
have to act is determined by an incompatible statute, it is thus debatable that section 6 gives them
the power to deliver a declaration of incompatibility.
Section 2 by itself is not binding as courts can depart from the ECHR jurisprudence3.
This demonstrates Strasbourg’s lack of an adherent framework of precedent and identifies that
many of its decisions are prioritized as particularistic and some regard the state’s margin of
1 Legislation, Human Rights Act 1998 (1998)legislation.gov.uk<
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/2>
2 Ibid 1.
3 Ibid 2.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 2
appreciation, a discipline unavailable to national court since it originates from the rank of the
European Court of Human Rights as a global tribunal. According to Lord Hoffman, he was of the
view that if ECHR decisions forced a conclusion basically at odds with regards to the
distribution of powers as stipulated by the British constitution, then he would give the benefit of
the doubt as to whether such decisions should be adhered to. In the same context, Lord Slynn
prioritized that judges should always abide and follow the ECHR case law only in the absence of
some unique situations4. Lord Chancellor Irvine emphasized that it would be relevant on various
occasions to exercise the power to shift away from Strasbourg decisions demonstrating that it is
by doing so that British courts will be prosperous in leading to Strasbourg.
The important sections for evaluating the different functions of parliament and the courts
with regards to HRA sections are 3,4 and 19 of the Act and the interaction of such sections. In
section 19(1), the minister overseeing the Bill is required to issue a statement compatibility right
before phase of the second reading to the mandate that in his perspective the provisions of the
Bill are aligned with the convention rights. Section 3(1) requires the courts to go through the
basic and subordinate law every time it gets implemented in a manner that is uniform with the
convention rights, thus, this far it is possible to achieve that5. However, as of section 3(2), the
clause fails to impact the formality, operation in progress or implementation of any sort of
incompatibility with regards to primary or subordinate legislation. In such scenarios, where the
provision is rendered incompatible and the primary legislation in force prevents the termination
of any incompatibility, then as identified in section 4, it is acceptable that the highest appropriate
courts to effect a status of incompatibility.
4 Ibid 4.
5 Ibid 5.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 3
Thus, it is imperative to note that such declarations of incompatibility do not remove the
contradicting provisions that are enforceable, runnable and formal and lack attachments on the
individuals against whom they are made. The unanimous decision regarding whether to amend
the incompatibility through amendments of the law lies with the state and certainly the
legislature though provision is enhancing in section 10 for a legislative protocol that is needed to
provide such remedial action.
Sections 19 and 4 when viewed on the surface they seem to be transparent tools of
political constitutionalism6. On the first account, it could be interpreted as giving the judiciary a
transparent indicator that the law should be viewed as compatible and in the second, gives the
final word on whether have the legislation revised or not. Regarding section 19, the courts at first
showed little concern to the declarations of compatibility to a large extent for reasons such as
political constitutionalism should have to approve. The courts by far and large have been under
immense tension regarding the weighty statements by ministers as to what their motives are with
any piece of legislation.
With regards to Section 4 it was hailed as the primary provision of the Human Rights
Act. Many advocates perceived it as establishing a contemporary model of judicial review that
acted as an intermediary between political and legal constitutionalism7. However, other
advocates postulate that both constitutionalists with regards to legal and political aspects in real
life exhibit little difference regarding the feeble and robust judicial review and that the latter is a
chimera. The important thing to note is that the legislature has always complied with regards to
such decisions and initiated amendments regarding the offending law. However, the imperative
point is why the parliament has to comply.One is that parliament exercises its prerogative.
6 Ibid 6.
7 Ibid 7.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 4
Parliament exercising its prerogative is done rarely and remains parliament to exercise. Taking,
for instance, the highest profile of the declaration of incompatibility with regards to Belmarsh
Prison, the parliament can barely be identified as supinely agreeing on the decision by the court.
Though parliament respected judgment by the court that the prevailing detention program
entailed illogical segregation against non-UK citizens as almost took a year to give responses,
applying the new control-order scheme after one of the debates deemed to be the longest in
parliament. In the meantime, the inmates got released after the contemporary legislation got
enacted such that they could immediately get rearrested. Thus, parliament can barely be seen as
conceding judicial supremacy rightly or wrongly.
The second motive is a political culture that any state could deem it politically
inexpedient to oppose such a decision by the court only if it was confident of the overwhelming
political backing in advancing such as was the scenario when Roosevelt stood against the
Lochner-era logic of the U.S. highest court. It is thus highly disputable that based on the
preelection dedication of the Conservative Party to repeal the Human Rights Act as the logic
behind such is not compatible with political constitutionalism.
Part two: Economics assignment
Question1: Elasticity
Unit elasticity
With this kind of elasticity, an equal change in demand yields the same impact in the
price of a commodity hence the name unitary elastic of demand8. The unitary elastic demand is
assigned a numerical value that is equal to the one that is ¿=1)9. Unitary elastic demand is
characterized by a demand curve portrayed as a rectangular hyperbola as in the graph below:
8N, Gregory Mankiw., Principles of Microeconomics (Cengage Learning,5th ed,2008)
9 Ibid 8.