united-kingdom human-rights legal-history
What was the most direct predecessor to Human Rights Act 1998?
<p>HRA is said to be &quot;constitutional.&quot; Which is slightly peculiar, as &quot;constitutional&quot; acts often precede the majority of a republic's other active statutes, and come reasonably early in the republic's foundation.</p>
<p>The UK is in the peculiar position of not in fact being a republic, yet still featuring many of the elements of modern democracies, and certain acts are held up to be &quot;constitutional&quot; (ie supreme).</p>
<p>1998 is reasonably late in the history of the UK, so what was the framework before that? What happened in 1998 that prompted it to be dispensed with and subplanted by HRA?</p>

<h2>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1997 General Election</a></h2>
<p>Incorporating the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" rel="nofollow noreferrer">European Convention on Human Rights</a> into domestic law was Labor party policy. They won the election after 2 decades of Conservative rule and implemented their policy. Some parts of the electorate believed that the the Thatcher-Major’s Governments had not respected the Convention.</p>
<p>Prior to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Human Rights Act</a>, UK courts could not strike down UK laws that conflicted with the convention or give orders implementing it if these conflicted with domestic law. A petitioner would have to exhaust all domestic remedies and then go to the European Court of Human Rights to force government compliance - a long (in both time and distance) and expensive journey.</p>

<p>This isn't a direct answer to the question, but being Canadian, I feel an intrinsic need to address the presumptions in this question which I view as overly US-centric.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Which slightly peculiar, as &quot;constitutional&quot; acts often precede the majority of a republic's other active statutes, and come reasonably early in the republic's foundation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This isn't that peculiar. Countries with &quot;late&quot; and &quot;major&quot; constitutional documents include Canada (1982), Egypt (2014), France (arguably the 2008 amendments), New Zealand (1990), Norway (2014), Sweden (2011). Yes a lot of these aren't republics, but neither is the comparison country of the UK.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The UK is in the peculiar position of not in fact being a republic, yet still featuring many of the elements of modern democracies</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, this is not too peculiar. Reasonably democratic non-republics include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>certain acts are held up to be &quot;constitutional&quot; (ie supreme).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The &quot;ie supreme&quot; parenthetical can be misleading. Constitutional documents are not necessarily supreme in the sense of automatically overriding other laws or requiring some sort of super-majority to amend or repeal (both true in the US, neither true in the UK). Admittedly, of my issues with the presumptions in this question, this one is more often correct than the others I pointed out, but other examples I'm aware of are: the Netherlands, New Zealand, and to an extent Switzerland (in terms of not automatically overriding other laws).</p>
