Abstract
This paper examines how Britain tries to defend its national sovereignty against European challenges in the area of human rights policies and how the British approach to human rights has evolved after adjusting complicated demands from Europe. I explore the three British Acts of human rights and immigration policies: the Human rights Act of 1998, the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. I assess the British case in the context of two competing views: one, human rights as a constitutive principle of, not an external imposition on, liberal nation states. The other, human rights as a universalized discourse of entitlement that rendered national citizenship inventively irrelevant. I argue that the British case basically confirms the priority of national sovereignty in the evolution of human rights regime, but shows a transition to the concept of human rights as a universalized entitlement beyond the nation state.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
