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?
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
