最高法院对伊兰-凯恩案的判决:非性别认同与《人权法》与《欧洲公约》的关系

Naomi Hart
{"title":"最高法院对伊兰-凯恩案的判决:非性别认同与《人权法》与《欧洲公约》的关系","authors":"Naomi Hart","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2022.2127570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. In R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Elan-Cane’), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to a policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO), an agency of the Home Office which issues passports at the discretion of the respondent Secretary of State in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which required the appellant to state their gender as either male or female in order to obtain a passport. The Court was required to determine whether HMPO’s policy was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and (irrespective of the answer to the first question) whether HMPO’s policy nonetheless breached the Secretary of State’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Act’). Lord Reed PSC, who delivered a judgment with which all other members of the Court agreed, answered both questions in the negative.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Elan-Cane: Non-gendered Identity and the Relationship Between the Human Rights Act and the European Convention\",\"authors\":\"Naomi Hart\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10854681.2022.2127570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"1. In R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Elan-Cane’), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to a policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO), an agency of the Home Office which issues passports at the discretion of the respondent Secretary of State in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which required the appellant to state their gender as either male or female in order to obtain a passport. The Court was required to determine whether HMPO’s policy was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and (irrespective of the answer to the first question) whether HMPO’s policy nonetheless breached the Secretary of State’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Act’). Lord Reed PSC, who delivered a judgment with which all other members of the Court agreed, answered both questions in the negative.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Judicial Review\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Judicial Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2022.2127570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2022.2127570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1. 在R (Elan-Cane)诉内政部国务秘书(“Elan-Cane”)一案中,最高法院面临着对女王陛下护照办公室(HMPO)政策的挑战,该机构是内政部的一个机构,在行使王室特权的情况下,根据答辩人的自由裁量权签发护照,该政策要求上诉人声明其性别为男性或女性才能获得护照。法院需要确定HMPO的政策是否与《欧洲人权公约》(《公约》)不符,以及(无论第一个问题的答案如何)HMPO的政策是否违反了国务卿根据《1998年人权法案》(《法案》)承担的义务。里德勋爵作出了法院所有其他成员都同意的判决,他对这两个问题都作了否定的回答。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Elan-Cane: Non-gendered Identity and the Relationship Between the Human Rights Act and the European Convention
1. In R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Elan-Cane’), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to a policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO), an agency of the Home Office which issues passports at the discretion of the respondent Secretary of State in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which required the appellant to state their gender as either male or female in order to obtain a passport. The Court was required to determine whether HMPO’s policy was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and (irrespective of the answer to the first question) whether HMPO’s policy nonetheless breached the Secretary of State’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Act’). Lord Reed PSC, who delivered a judgment with which all other members of the Court agreed, answered both questions in the negative.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Article 2 and Standards of Proof in Inquests: Unintelligible, Unclear, and Unpredictable? Of Codes and Common Law: The Approach to Apparent Bias in Local Government Committees Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament The Curious Case of Boris’ Bishop: Did the First Catholic Prime Minister Fall Foul of s 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829? Information Law and Automated Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1