In Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2021) 95 ALJR 832 and Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 95 ALJR 868, the High Court dismissed a challenge to Western Australian legislation which retrospectively divested Clive….
WhatsApp chat? Click Here
Need Help? Chat with us!
U.S. constitutional law distinguishes between intentionally discriminatory actions and those with a disparate impact. Ordinarily, statutes with a disparate impact are required to satisfy only a requirement of rationality, while sometimes statutes that intentionally discriminate must satisfy a more stringent standard. Does the Human Rights Committee take a different approach? What justifications are there for distinguishing between intentional discrimination and disparate impact? Are they relevant to the problem in Simunek? Examine the racial and birth discrimination claims in Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, 94 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) (1985). Would these claims have succeeded under the UN Human Rights Committee’s analysis in Simunek?
U.S. constitutional law distinguishes between intentionally discriminatory actions and those with a disparate impact. Ordinarily, statutes with a disparate impact are required to satisfy only a requirement of rationality, while sometimes statutes that intentionally discriminate must satisfy a more stringent standard. Does the Human Rights Committee take a different approach? What justifications are there for distinguishing between intentional discrimination and disparate impact? Are they relevant to the problem in Simunek?
Examine the racial and birth discrimination claims in Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, 94 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) (1985). Would these claims have succeeded under the UN Human Rights Committee’s analysis in Simunek?
