Skip Navigation


International Journal of Constitutional Law Advance Access originally published online on September 23, 2008
International Journal of Constitutional Law 2008 6(3-4):585-604; doi:10.1093/icon/mon027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/3-4/585    most recent
mon027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

This article appears in the following International Journal of Constitutional Law issue: SYMPOSIUM: constitutionalism in an era of globalization and privatization [View the issue table of contents]

Public functions and private services: A gap in human rights protection

Stephanie Palmer*

* Fellow, Girton College, Cambridge University. Email: sp10002{at}cam.ac.uk


  Abstract

Private organizations are deeply entrenched in fulfilling the responsibilities of government through the provision of public services. In this context, we must question the conceptual coherence of drawing sharp distinctions between public and private functions. In YL v Birmingham City Council, however, the House of Lords had to determine which of the various functions contracted out by public authorities retain their public character for the purposes of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998. This article analyzes the complex public/private division set up by the Human Rights Act and argues that the decision of the House of Lords has led to a gap in human rights protection and has weakened public accountability.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.