The afterlife of parliamentary sovereignty

  • Nicholas W. Barber Trinity College, Oxford
  • Vasiliy Alexeevich Tokarev Samara State Regional Academy (Nayanova); University of Paris X-Nanterre (France)

Abstract

The paper discusses the nature of Parliamentary sovereignty. Firstly, the author reflects on the approaches to understanding the sovereignty before 1991 and then argues that the relevant rule was repealed by the pivotal case of Factortame. Nevertheless, Parliamentary sovereignty enjoyed an afterlife. Though it is no longer a part of the UK Constitution, it still continues to attract the attentions of scholars who, knowingly or unconsciously, apply this label to new constitutional phenomena. The author concludes by reflecting on the problems caused by this situation. When British constitutional lawyers meet, talks often turn to the question of the Parliamentary sovereignty; indeed, it would be hard to avoid this topic. debates about the implications of the Parliamentary sovereignty for the Human Rights Act, for submission of issues to be considered by the bodies designated by the Parliament and accountable before it; and the supposed constraints of its powers during the constitutional reform — all these issues inspire lively debates. The aim of this paper is not to engage into these disputes, but to argue that their participants have wrong perceptions of the subject. Whatever the precise content of the Parliamentary sovereignty is, it ceased to be a distinctive feature of the UK Constitution in 1991. The fact that the Parliamentary sovereignty still generates interest is hazardous; there is a risk of distorting the answers regarding the constitutional reform and of distracting our attention from important features of our modern Constitution. The paper consists of four parts. The first part of the paper outlines the nature of the Parliamentary sovereignty. The second part describes its “death” in the pivotal case of Factortame. The third part recounts the “afterlife” of the Parliamentary sovereignty. The problems arose as a result of it are described in the fourth part of this article.

Keywords:

sovereignty, Parliament, Constitution, rule, court, interpretation, constraints, human rights

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Nicholas W. Barber , Trinity College, Oxford

Associate Professor, Fellow and Tutor in Law

Vasiliy Alexeevich Tokarev, Samara State Regional Academy (Nayanova); University of Paris X-Nanterre (France)

candidate of legal sciences, Head of the department of History of State and Law; doctoral student 

References

Allan T.R.S. Constitutional Justice: а Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. 460 p.

Allan T.R.S. Parliamentary Sovereignty: Lord denning’s dexterous Revolution. Oxford J. Legal Stud. 1983, no. 3, p. 22.

Allan T.R.S. Questions of Legality and Legitimacy: Form and Substance in British Constitutionalism. IGCL. 2011, no. 9, pp. 155–162.

Allison J. The English Historical Constitution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007. 520 p.

Anson W.R. Law and Custom of the Constitution. VoOxford 1. Oxford University Press, M. Gwyer (ed.), 1922. 470 p.

Autologic v. Inland Revenue [2005] U.K.HOXFORd 54, Lord Nicholls at paras. 16–17 and Lord Walker at paras. 128.

Bamforth N. Courts in a Multi-Layered Constitution. Public Law in a Multi-layered Constitution. Nicholas Bamforth & Peter Leyland (eds.), 2003. 433 p.

Bamforth N. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford University Press, 1998. 572 p.

Barber N. W. Laws and Constitutional Conventions. Law Q. Rev. 2009, no. 125, pp. 294–309.

Barber N. W. The Constitutional State. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. 199 p.

Bradley A. The Sovereignty of Parliament — Form or Substance? The Changing Constitution. Ed. by Jeffrey Jowell and dawn Oliver. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 26–61.

Bryce J. Studies in history and jurisprudence. Vol.1. Oxford, Clarendon Press., 1901. 560 p.

Case 213/89 R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex. p. Factortame Ltd. [1990] E. C. R. I-2433.

Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlandse Administatie der Belastingen [1963] E.C.R.1.

Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] C. M. L. R. 425.

Craig P. Britain in the European Union. The Changing Constitution. Jeffrey Jowell & dawn Oliver (eds.), 2007. P. 92.

Craig P. Constitutional Foundations, the Rule of Law and Supremacy. Oxford, 2003. Р.92.

Craig P. Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Ch. 2. Oxford, 1990. 378 p.

Craig P. The Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament after Factortame. 11 Y. B. EUR. L., 1991, pp. 221, 252–253 (1991).

Dicey A. V. An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution. Oxford, 1959, pp. 39–40.

Edinburgh and dalkeith Railway v. Wauchope (1842) 8 C. L. & F. 725.

Eekelaar J. The death of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Comment. Law Q. Rev. 1997, no. 113, pp. 185, 187.

Ekins R. Acts of Parliament and the Parliament Acts. Law Q. Rev. 2007, no. 91, p. 123.

Ellen Street Estates Ltd. v. Minister of Health [1934] 1 K. B. 590.

Elliott M. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the New Constitutional Order. Legal Stud. 2002, no. 22, pp. 340, 371.

Endicott T. The Logic of Freedom and Power. Philosophy of International Law. John Tasioulas & Samantha Besson (eds.), 2010. 624 p.

Ewing K.d. The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary democracy. Mod. L.Rev. 1999, no. 62, pp. 79, 98.

Godden v. Hales (1686) 11 State Trials 1165.

Goldsworthy J. The sovereignty of Parliament: history and philosophy. Ch. 2. Oxford, 1999. 332 p.

Hamilton v. Al Fayed [1999] 3 All E. R. 317, 320.

Hart H. L. ,The Concept of Law. Oxford, 1994, pp. 148–150.

Heuston R. F. V. Essays in Constitutional Law. Ch. 1. Oxford, 1964. 215 p.

Jackson P., Leopold P., Phillips O. H. and Jackson. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford, 2001, pp. 79–81.

Jennings I. The Law and the Constitution. Ch. 4. Oxford, 1959. 456 p.

Kavanagh A. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Oxford, 2009. Ch.11340 p.

Knights C. J. S. Bi-Polar Sovereignty Restated. Cambridge L. J., 2009, p. 361.

Latham R. T. E. What is an Act of Parliament? King’s counsel. 1939, p. 152.

Laws J. Law and Democracy. Oxford, 1995, pp. 72, 86–88.

Lister v. Forth dry dock [1990] 1 A. C. 546.

Maccormick N. A Very British Revolution? Questioning Sovereignty. Oxford, 1999. 222 p.

Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 A. C. 645.

Manuel v. Attorney-General [1982] 3 All E. R. 786, 792.

Marshall G. Constitutional theory. Oxford, 1971, pp. 41–43.

Marshall G. The Conceptual Foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Oxford, 2009, pp. 519, 525–531.

Martin A. The Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities: Jurisdictional Problems. Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1968–1969, no. 7, pp. 7–49.

Nicol d. EC Membership and the Judicialization of British Politics. Ch.2. Oxford, 2001. 315 p.

Oliver P.C. Sovereignty in the Twenty-first Century. King’s College L.J., 2003, pp. 137, 149–154.

Oliver P.C. The Constitution of independence: the development of constitutional theory in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Chs. 2–4. Oxford, 2005. 385 p.

Phillips O. H. Reform of the Constitution. Oxford, 1970, pp. 18–19, 91–93.

Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A. C. 765, 789.

Sedley S. Human Rights: A Twenty-first Century Agenda. Oxford, 1995, pp. 386, 389.

Smith S.A. de. The Constitution and the Common Market: A Tentative Appraisal. Mod. L. Rev. 1971, no. 34, p. 507.

Thoburn v. Sunderland C. C. [2002] 3 W. L. R. 247.

Tomkins A. Public Law. Oxford, 2003, pp. 116–119.

Trindade F.A. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy of European Community Law. Mod. L. Rev. 1972, no. 35, p. 375.

Wade H. W. R. Constitutional Fundamentals. Oxford, 1989, pp. 39–40.

Wade H.W.R. Sovereignty — Revolution or Evolution? Law Q.Rev. 1996, no.112, p. 568.

Wade H.W.R. The Basis of Legal Sovereignty. Cambridge L.J., 1955, pp.172, 175–176.

Weill R. Dicey Was Not a Diceyan. Cambridge L. J., 2003, p. 474.

Wheare K.C. The Constitutional Structure of the Commonwealth. Oxford, 1960. Ch. 4. 390 p.

X Ltd. v. Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 A. C. 1, 48.

Young A. L. Hunting Sovereignty: Jackson v. A-G. L., 2006. P. 187.

Young A.L. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act. Ch.2. Oxford, 2009. 280 p.

Zellick G. Is the Parliament Act Ultra Vires? New LJ., 1969, p. 119.

Published
2016-06-01
How to Cite
Barber , N. W., & Tokarev, V. A. (2016). The afterlife of parliamentary sovereignty. Pravovedenie, 60(3), 156-171. Retrieved from https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/6953
Section
Public law

Most read articles by the same author(s)