SOAS Research Online

Abstract

This thesis provides a novel discursive and analytical legal-historical account that reveals how the Labour Party and its key or leading figures—individuals who held important positions or exercised significant authority—understood and approached the theory and practice of rights across the 20th century. More specifically, influenced by different ideological frameworks, this research explains how key figures in the Labour Party rooted their understanding of rights in ideas about the nature of society and sovereignty. While consolidating existing literature, this thesis utilises archival material (National, Labour Party, Travaux Préparatoires, and stored personal Papers etc), various primary sources, and political thought to construct a new account. Part I (1900-1955) explains how ethical socialism, communitarianism, and a socialistic-political constitutionalism caused leading figures in the early Labour Party and Clement Attlee’s government to support the creation of an “ethical society” (an other-regarding/interdependent citizenry) and maintain “untrammelled sovereignty” (the elected majority in Parliament, whose authority derived from the electorate, controlling domestic decision-making). Consequently, rights were linked to societal duties (strict/non-correlative) and codified rights, judicial authority, and supranational instruments e.g., European Convention on Human Rights were fiercely resisted. Part II (1956-1979) shows how revisionism and a liberally orientated socialistic-political constitutionalism influenced key figures from the early revisionist right and Harold Wilson’s government to reject an ethical society and liberally reframe untrammelled sovereignty. This saw societal duties be replaced by personal choice and acceptance of individual petition/jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Lastly, influenced by Thatcherite ethics and a modernising constitutionalism, Part III (1980-2000) explains New Labour’s societal emphasis on responsible individualism/market entry and desire to reduce the elected majority in Parliament’s political capacity (a reduced untrammelled sovereignty). Accordingly, paternalistic responsibilities were linked to social entitlements and the Human Rights Act 1998 was created. These conclusions elucidate the Labour Party’s shifting approach to rights.