UK Parliamentary Sovereignty:

Definition, Challenges &

Limitations

UK Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty is a central concept in the UK's

constitutional law and an essential element to understand the
British legal system. Throughout this article, you will explore a
detailed overview of Parliamentary Sovereignty, including its
definition, origins, and key principles. Furthermore, you will be
provided with insights into the limitations imposed upon
Parliamentary Sovereignty by European Union membership and
the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as potential challenges this
concept may face in the future. Lastly, you will be able to contrast
Parliamentary Sovereignty with constitutional supremacy,
particularly examining the unique characteristics of the UK's
unwritten constitution in relation to other written constitutional
models. This comprehensive analysis aims to enhance your
understanding of the UK's legal landscape and the pivotal role
Parliamentary Sovereignty plays in shaping government power
dynamics.
:
 Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for
free.

Sign-up for free!

UK Parliamentary Sovereignty
Law Content Disclaimer

The Law content provided by StudySmarter Gmbh is for

Educational Reasons only. This content should not be taken as
legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a qualified legal
professional. StudySmarter Gmbh is not liable for any errors,
omissions, or inaccuracies in this content, or any actions taken
based on it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Test your knowledge with multiple choice

flashcards
:
 Learn with 15 UK Parliamentary Sovereignty flashcards in the free
StudySmarter app
Learn with 15 UK Parliamentary Sovereignty flashcards in the free
StudySmarter app
Learn with 15 UK Parliamentary Sovereignty flashcards in the free
StudySmarter app

Your score:

Learn with 15 UK Parliamentary Sovereignty

flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

SIGNUP

Understanding Parliamentary Sovereignty

in the UK
Parliamentary Sovereignty is a fundamental principle that
underpins the British constitution and plays an important role in
shaping the legal system in the United Kingdom. To fully grasp the
:
 implications of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the context of the
UK, it's essential to delve deeper into its definition, origins and
development.

Thanks to this ad, StudySmarter remains free:

Remove Ads? Sign up for free

Definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty, also known as legislative supremacy,

refers to the doctrine that the Parliament of the United Kingdom
:
 has the ultimate legal authority to create, alter, or revoke any law
within its jurisdiction without being restricted by the judiciary or
any external constraints. In simpler terms, it means that
Parliament has the supreme power to legislate, and its decisions
cannot be challenged or overridden by any other institution or
body.

This principle is based on the assumption that the legitimacy of

laws stems from the representatives elected by the people in a
democratic process, and thus the Parliament has the ultimate
mandate to make decisions for the welfare of the nation. However,
it's worth noting that the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty as
it exists today has evolved over time through various historical
events and legal interpretations.

Origins and Development of Parliamentary

Sovereignty

The origins and development of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the

United Kingdom can be traced back through centuries of legal
and political history. Some landmark events and developments
that significantly contributed to shaping the understanding of this
principle include:

The Magna Carta (1215): Although not directly related to the

concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Magna Carta
established the supremacy of the law, paving the way for the
idea that the ruler is also subject to the law and thus, laying
the foundation for the evolution of a sovereign parliament.
The Bill of Rights (1689): Following the Glorious Revolution of
1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted to establish the
supremacy of the Parliament over the monarchy. It enshrined
the principle that the monarch could not suspend, dispense
:
 with, or create any law without the consent of the Parliament.
Legal Developments and Caselaw: Over time, various
legislation and court judgments have contributed to the
strengthening and refinement of the concept of
Parliamentary Sovereignty. For instance, the case of R v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte
Factortame (1990) highlighted the issue of compatibility
between UK law and European Union law, eventually leading
to the European Communities Act 1972 requiring domestic
courts to give effect to EU law, even if it conflicts with
domestic legislation.

Another significant example is the case of Thoburn v Sunderland

City Council (2002), often referred to as the 'Metric Martyrs'
case, where Lord Justice Laws identified the concept of
'constitutional statutes' that cannot be impliedly repealed. This
case contributed to the idea that some statutes hold greater
constitutional significance and warrant special protection.

In recent times, the debates surrounding Brexit and the

subsequent legislation such as the European Union (Withdrawal)
Act 2018 have reignited discussions about Parliamentary
Sovereignty and its interaction with European Union law,
reminding us of its ongoing relevance in the UK legal system.

It is important to note that although Parliamentary Sovereignty is

a cornerstone of the UK constitution, it is not absolute.
Limitations exist, such as those imposed by international treaties,
EU law (prior to Brexit), and the principle of the rule of law.
Furthermore, the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland has sparked discussions about the potential
impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty at the central level.
:
 In conclusion, the development of Parliamentary Sovereignty has
been an evolving process throughout UK legal and political
history. Its significance and implications continue to be relevant in
the contemporary British legal system, as it remains a
foundational principle shaping the functions of the Parliament and
its relationship with other institutions.

Key Principles of Parliamentary

Sovereignty
At the core of Parliamentary Sovereignty are several key
principles that help define and shape the concept. These
principles guide the understanding of the doctrine and its
relationship with other aspects of the UK legal system. In this
section, we will delve into the details of the Doctrine of Implied
Repeal and the role of courts in upholding Parliamentary
Sovereignty.

Stay organized and focused

Collect and manage all your study materials in one place in the
StudySmarter app.

Sign up for free

Doctrine of Implied Repeal

One key principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the Doctrine of

Implied Repeal. This doctrine is based on the idea that if a later
statute (legislation) contradicts or conflicts with an earlier
statute, the later statute is deemed to have repealed the earlier
one, even if the earlier statute has not been expressly repealed.

The concept of Implied Repeal is rooted in two fundamental

:
 principles: first, that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament,
and second, that Parliament cannot deprive itself of the power to
legislate in any specific area. Consequently, the doctrine ensures
that the will of the current Parliament remains dominant over any
earlier acts passed by its predecessors.

The Doctrine of Implied Repeal has been affirmed and applied by

the courts in several landmark cases, such as:

Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health (1934): In this case,

two statutes - the Acquisition of Land Act 1919, and the
Housing Act 1925 - came into conflict. The court held that
the later Housing Act effectively repealed the relevant
provisions of the earlier statute.
Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation (1932): The court
found that a later act relating to compensation for land
acquisition had impliedly repealed an earlier act on the same
subject matter. The later act took precedence, even though it
did not expressly repeal the earlier legislation.

However, the Doctrine of Implied Repeal is not without limitations.

As mentioned earlier, the concept of 'constitutional statutes'
emerged in the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
(2002). These statutes, by virtue of their constitutional
significance, cannot be repealed impliedly and can only be
repealed expressly by Parliament. Thus, the Doctrine of Implied
Repeal does not extend to these constitutional statutes.

The Role of the Courts in Upholding

Parliamentary Sovereignty

The courts play a crucial role in preserving and enforcing the

doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom.
:
 Through their judgments and interpretations of statutes, the
courts uphold the supremacy of Parliament and ensure that its
will prevails in the legal system. The courts' role in upholding
Parliamentary Sovereignty can be understood through the
following aspects:

Interpretation of Statutes: In instances of ambiguity or

conflict in legislation, the courts interpret the statutory
provisions in a way that adheres to the principle of
Parliamentary Sovereignty. When interpreting statutes, the
courts follow rules and principles to give effect to the
intention of Parliament, such as the literal rule, the golden
rule, the mischief rule, and the purposive approach.
Challenging the Validity of Acts of Parliament: Based on the
concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the UK courts do not
have the authority to strike down or declare primary
legislation passed by Parliament invalid. The courts can only
interpret and apply the legislation as it stands, maintaining
the supremacy of Parliament's legislative power.
Judicial Review: The UK courts have the power of judicial
review, which allows them to examine the actions of public
authorities, including government ministers and agencies, to
ensure that they are acting in accordance with the law. While
judicial review does not grant the courts the power to
invalidate primary legislation, it serves as a crucial check on
executive action to ensure that it aligns with the legal
framework established by Parliament.

An example of the role of courts in upholding Parliamentary

Sovereignty is the case of R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005).
In this case, the courts examined the validity of the Hunting Act
2004 and whether the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, which
changed the way laws could be passed without the consent of the
:
 House of Lords, were constitutionally valid. The courts ultimately
upheld the validity of both the Hunting Act 2004 and the
Parliament Acts, asserting the Parliament's power to make laws
and the courts' responsibility to interpret and apply them.

In summary, the courts play an indispensable role in upholding

Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK legal system. Their
judgments and decisions not only ensure that Parliament's
legislative power remains supreme but also provide a necessary
check on the executive branch of government, preserving the
delicate balance of powers in the UK's constitutional framework.

Find relevant study materials

Access thousands of Study Sets from our experts and other users
in the StudySmarter app.

Sign up for free

Limitations on Parliamentary Sovereignty

in the UK
Despite its central role in the UK constitution, Parliamentary
Sovereignty is not absolute and has experienced various
limitations over time. Two significant constraints on Parliamentary
Sovereignty stem from the UK's past membership in the European
Union and the incorporation of the Human Rights Act 1998 into
domestic law. These limitations have profound implications for the
way legislation and government action must be aligned with these
external frameworks.

The Impact of European Union Membership

During its membership in the European Union, the UK was subject

:
 to EU law, which posed a substantial limitation on Parliamentary
Sovereignty. This impact could be seen in various aspects, such
as the supremacy of EU law, direct applicability of EU regulations,
and the obligations arising from EU directives and treaties.

Supremacy of EU Law: As a member state, UK laws were

required to be consistent with EU law, which had superiority
over domestic legislation. This idea of supremacy was
established in the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) case of
Costa v ENEL (1964) and was acknowledged by UK courts in
the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte Factortame (1990). In this case, the House of Lords
held that EU law took precedence over conflicting domestic
legislation, effectively suspending a UK Act of Parliament.
Direct Applicability of EU Regulations: EU regulations have
direct applicability in all member states, meaning they are
enforceable in the UK without the need for implementing
legislation by Parliament. This feature of EU law essentially
bypassed the traditional legislative process, limiting the
influence of Parliament in regulating various matters.
Obligations Arising from EU Directives and Treaties: EU
directives required the UK to achieve specific legislative
outcomes, but Parliament retained discretion regarding the
method and form of implementation. As such, while the
objectives dictated by EU directives were mandatory,
Parliament still had some degree of control over the process.
Additionally, EU treaties imposed obligations on the UK,
restricting Parliament's power to create legislation that
contravened these treaty provisions.

However, with the UK's decision to leave the EU and the eventual
enactment of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the
supremacy of EU law in the UK has ceased, restoring the full
:
 scope of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Nevertheless, the impact of
EU membership on Parliamentary Sovereignty during the UK's
membership remains an essential aspect of understanding the
limitations placed upon it in certain periods.

Study with friends

Motivate each other and share your study materials in the

StudySmarter app.

Sign up for free

The Influence of the Human Rights Act 1998

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights

(ECHR) into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)
presents another limitation on Parliamentary Sovereignty. The
HRA has altered the constitutional landscape by requiring public
authorities to act compatibly with the rights enshrined in the
ECHR, as well as obliging the courts to interpret and apply
legislation in a manner that is compatible with these rights, where
possible.

Section 3 of the HRA: This section requires UK courts to

interpret domestic legislation, as far as possible, in a way that
is compatible with the Convention rights. This interpretive
obligation empowers the courts to read legislation in a
manner that aligns with the ECHR's rights without directly
contravening Parliamentary Sovereignty. A notable example
can be seen in the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004),
where the House of Lords adopted a broad interpretation of
the Rent Act 1977 to ensure compatibility with the right to
respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR).
:
 Section 4 of the HRA: If the courts find that a provision of
primary legislation cannot be interpreted in a way that is
compatible with the ECHR, they may issue a declaration of
incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA. While this
declaration does not affect the validity of the legislation, it
serves as a signal to Parliament that the law may need to be
amended to comply with the ECHR, thus indirectly
influencing the legislative process.
Section 6 of the HRA: This section requires all public
authorities, including government departments, local
authorities, and the courts, to act compatibly with the
Convention rights. As a result, the HRA effectively places
limits on executive powers and influences the actions of
public authorities while acting within the legal framework
established by Parliament.

Although the HRA does not grant the courts an outright power to
invalidate primary legislation, it restricts the scope of
Parliamentary Sovereignty by imposing obligations to adhere to
the ECHR's human rights framework. The impact of the HRA
serves to place the protection and promotion of human rights at
the forefront of legislative and governmental action, shaping the
boundaries of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the contemporary UK
legal landscape.

Challenges to Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK, while having a long history
and being a cornerstone of the British constitution, is not without
its challenges. In recent times, various factors have contributed to
questioning the traditional understanding of Parliamentary
Sovereignty and placing the doctrine under increased scrutiny.
Two prominent challenges to Parliamentary Sovereignty include
:
 calls for constitutional reform and strong judicial activism in the
UK context.

Create and study flashcards

Create flashcards quickly and study them with science-backed

learn modes in the StudySmarter app.

Sign up for free

Calls for Constitutional Reform

The United Kingdom's constitution, being uncodified, has evolved

and adapted organically over time. Several factors have led to
calls for constitutional reform that may affect or challenge the
established notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Significant
aspects contributing to these calls include devolution, regional
differences, electoral reform, and the role of the House of Lords.

1. Devolution: The transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to

regional institutions, such as the Scottish Parliament, Welsh
Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, raises
questions regarding the extent and application of
Parliamentary Sovereignty in relation to these devolved
administrations. Different legislative competencies, and the
potential for conflicting decisions between the UK Parliament
and devolved governments, have fueled the debate on the
impact of devolution on Parliamentary Sovereignty.
2. Regional Differences: The United Kingdom is a diverse nation
with distinct cultures and identities within its constituent
countries. This diversity can lead to regional differences in
political preferences and priorities, with some areas feeling
that their needs and concerns are not adequately addressed
:
 by the central Parliament. This sentiment has prompted calls
for reform to ensure better representation of regional needs
in the decision-making process, ultimately challenging the
current application of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
3. Electoral Reform: The UK's current First Past the Post (FPTP)
electoral system has been criticized for not providing
proportional representation of the electorate's preferences.
This lack of proportionality has led to calls for electoral
reform, which could potentially alter the way Parliamentary
Sovereignty is exercised. A reformed system with a more
proportional distribution of power may result in different
structures and constraints being placed on the exercise of
legislative authority within Parliament.
4. Role of the House of Lords: The House of Lords, being an
unelected chamber, has been the subject of debates
regarding its role and composition in a modern democratic
state. While the House of Lords does not possess the same
legislative power as the House of Commons, it does play a
significant role in scrutinizing, revising, and occasionally
delaying legislation. Calls for reforming or even abolishing the
House of Lords ultimately challenges the established
construction of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is based on
the two-chamber system.

These calls for constitutional reform demonstrate the increasing

recognition of the need to reassess and potentially restructure
the fundamentals of Parliamentary Sovereignty as it exists today.
A reformed constitutional framework may contribute to creating a
more inclusive and democratic decision-making process while
maintaining the principle of legislative supremacy at the core of
the UK legal system.
:
 Strong Judicial Activism in the UK

Judicial activism refers to instances where judges interpret the

law in a way that advances particular political, social or economic
goals, potentially influencing or challenging the decisions of the
Parliament. In the UK context, strong judicial activism has
implications for the traditional understanding of Parliamentary
Sovereignty and the balance between the roles of the judiciary
and the legislature.

In recent years, there have been concerns about the increasing

role and influence of judges in shaping policy outcomes and
weighing in on matters that were once exclusively within the
domain of Parliament. The following factors shed light on the
extent of judicial activism in the UK:

Role of the Supreme Court: The creation of the UK Supreme

Court in 2009, replacing the appellate function of the House
of Lords, has signaled a shift in the relationship between the
judiciary and the legislature. While the Supreme Court is
bound by the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, cases
such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (2017) and R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
(2019) showcase the impact of judicial decisions on matters
of significant constitutional importance, sparking debates on
the extent of judicial power.
Judicial Review: The judiciary's power to review and
scrutinize the actions of public authorities ensures that they
operate within the framework of the law enacted by
Parliament. However, strong judicial activism in the context of
judicial review can lead to increased scrutiny of government
policies and actions, potentially infringing on the domain of
policymaking that traditionally rests with Parliament.
:
 Human Rights Act 1998: As discussed earlier, the
incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law through the HRA
has expanded the role of the courts in interpreting and
applying legislation in a manner compatible with human
rights. This interpretive power, while essential for the
protection of human rights, may come into conflict with the
traditional understanding of Parliamentary Sovereignty as
judges may adopt creative interpretations to align legislation
with Convention rights.

Judicial activism in the UK raises critical questions about the

balance of power between the judiciary and Parliament. While an
active judiciary is essential to uphold the rule of law and protect
human rights, it is crucial to maintain a balance that preserves the
supremacy of Parliament in the legislative process. Addressing
this challenge would require a nuanced approach that
acknowledges the interplay between the institutions and
prioritizes the principles of democratic accountability,
transparency, and the rule of law in crafting legal and policy
outcomes.

Comparing Parliamentary Sovereignty and

Constitutional Supremacy
While Parliamentary Sovereignty forms the cornerstone of the
UK's constitutional framework, many other countries operate
under a system of Constitutional Supremacy. This section will
explore the differences between these two systems by examining
the UK's unwritten constitution compared to written constitutions
and analysing the effects each system has on the balance of
power in government.

The UK's Unwritten Constitution vs. Written

:
 Constitutions

The UK operates under an unwritten constitution, which means

that its constitutional framework is made up of various sources,
including statutes, case law, conventions, and historical
documents, rather than a single codified document. In contrast,
many countries have written constitutions, such as the United
States and Germany, where the constitution is enshrined in a
single comprehensive document with a clear hierarchy of legal
norms.

Some key differences between unwritten and written

constitutions include:

Flexibility: Unwritten constitutions are generally more

flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, as they
can evolve through legislation or the development of new
constitutional conventions. Conversely, written constitutions
are typically more rigid and require formal amendment
procedures to make significant changes.
Clarity and Certainty: Written constitutions often provide
greater clarity and certainty regarding the underlying
principles and structures of the political and legal system. In
contrast, unwritten constitutions may give rise to interpretive
challenges and uncertainties due to the lack of a unified
source of constitutional provisions.
Judicial Interpretation: In systems with written
constitutions, the role of the judiciary often includes the
power of constitutional review, allowing courts to strike down
laws that violate the constitution. In the UK, however, the
courts' role is more limited, focusing on upholding and
interpreting Parliamentary Sovereignty rather than reviewing
the constitutionality of legislation.
:
 These differences between the UK's unwritten constitution and
written constitutions impact the way in which the principles of
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Constitutional Supremacy
manifest in their respective legal systems.

Effects on the Balance of Power in Government

The distinction between Parliamentary Sovereignty and

Constitutional Supremacy has a significant impact on the balance
of power within the government, particularly in terms of the
relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches. An exploration of these effects is crucial for
understanding the implications of each system:

Balance of Legislative Power: Under Parliamentary

Sovereignty, as in the UK, the legislature holds the ultimate
authority to create, amend, or repeal laws without constraints
from other branches or sources of law, except those
determined by its own rules and constitutional conventions.
On the other hand, under Constitutional Supremacy,
legislative power is restrained by the requirements of the
written constitution, ensuring that enacted laws align with
the constitutional framework and the rights and liberties it
guarantees.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation: In
countries with Constitutional Supremacy, the judiciary has a
significant role in interpreting the constitution and reviewing
the compatibility of legislation and executive action with
constitutional rights and principles. This power of judicial
review acts as a critical check on government power and
helps maintain the balance between the branches. However,
in the UK, the judiciary's powers are more limited, focusing
primarily on interpreting legislation and ensuring executive
:
 compliance with the law enacted by Parliament.
Accountability and Control of the Executive:
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Constitutional Supremacy
differ in the extent to which they hold the executive branch
accountable and subject its actions to legal constraints.
Under a system of Constitutional Supremacy, the executive is
generally subject to more checks and limitations, as its
actions must conform to the written constitution. In contrast,
while the UK's system of Parliamentary Sovereignty does
maintain a level of executive accountability through
principles such as the rule of law and ministerial
responsibility, the government operates within a more flexible
and less formally constrained legal framework.

By examining these effects on the balance of power in

government, it becomes evident that the choice between
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Constitutional Supremacy leads to
differences in the way authority, responsibility, and power are
allocated and exercised within a country's legal and political
system. Each approach has its merits and challenges, and the
suitability of either approach may depend on a nation's historical,
cultural, and political background.

Parliamentary Sovereignty - Key

takeaways
Parliamentary Sovereignty: the principle that the UK
Parliament has ultimate legal authority to create, alter, or
revoke laws without restriction from the judiciary or external
constraints.

Origins of Parliamentary Sovereignty: significant events

include the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and various legal
:
 developments and caselaw.

Doctrine of Implied Repeal: a principle of Parliamentary

Sovereignty where later statutes that conflict with earlier
ones are considered to have repealed the earlier ones, even if
not expressly.

Limitations on Parliamentary Sovereignty: past membership

in the European Union and the Human Rights Act 1998
imposed restrictions on the UK Parliament's legislative
authority.

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Constitutional Supremacy:

differences in flexibility, clarity, and balance of power in
government between systems based on an unwritten
constitution (like the UK) and written constitutions.

Frequently Asked Questions about UK

Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK's
constitution, which establishes the supremacy of Parliament over
the executive and judiciary branches of government. It means that
Parliament has the ultimate authority to make, alter, or repeal
laws, and its decisions cannot be overruled by any other body or
institution, including the courts. Therefore, Parliament can
exercise control over the government and ensure democratic
accountability. However, its sovereignty is now subject to certain
limitations imposed by the UK's membership in international
organisations and its obligations under international law.

Parliamentary sovereignty is important because it ensures that

the decisions and laws made by the elected representatives in
:
 Parliament are supreme and cannot be overruled by any external
authority or unelected body. This principle ensures democratic
governance, allows for efficient law-making, and maintains the
stability and continuity of the legal system in the UK. Additionally,
it promotes accountability and transparency, as the decision-
makers in Parliament answer to their constituents and the wider
public.

Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the principle in the UK

constitutional system that grants the Parliament the supreme
legal authority in the country. It means that Parliament can make,
amend, or repeal any law, and its decisions cannot be overridden
or challenged by any other institution, including courts or the
monarchy. Essentially, it means that the UK Parliament is the
highest source of legal authority and has ultimate control over
legislation.

No, parliamentary sovereignty is not a convention. It is a

fundamental principle and core concept of the UK constitution,
which asserts that Parliament holds the supreme authority within
the legal system. This means that Parliament has the power to
make, amend, or repeal any law without external constraints.
Conventions, on the other hand, are unwritten rules or norms that
guide constitutional behaviour but do not have legally binding
force.

The Human Rights Act does not fully undermine parliamentary

sovereignty, as it preserves the principle that Parliament can
legislate on any matter. However, it arguably places some
limitations on this sovereignty by requiring courts to interpret
legislation, where possible, in a way that is compatible with the
European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, courts can
:
 declare legislation incompatible with the Convention, though
Parliament has the final decision on whether to amend the law.
Overall, the Act introduces an element of balance between human
rights protection and maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.

Flashcards in UK Parliamentary Sovereignty15 Start learning

What is the definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Parliamentary Sovereignty is the doctrine that the UK Parliament

has the ultimate legal authority to create, alter, or revoke any law
within its jurisdiction without being restricted by the judiciary or
any external constraints. It means that Parliament has supreme
power to legislate, and its decisions cannot be challenged or
overridden by any other institution or body.

What are some landmark events that contributed to the

development of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK?

The Magna Carta (1215), which established the supremacy of law;

the Bill of Rights (1689), which established Parliament's
supremacy over the monarchy; and legal developments and cases
such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte
Factortame (1990), and Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
(2002) have shaped and strengthened the concept of
Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Are there any limitations to Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Yes, Parliamentary Sovereignty is not absolute, and limitations

exist such as those imposed by international treaties, EU law
(prior to Brexit), the principle of the rule of law, and the devolution
of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
:
 What is the Doctrine of Implied Repeal in Parliamentary
Sovereignty?

The Doctrine of Implied Repeal is a principle in Parliamentary

Sovereignty stating that if a later statute contradicts or conflicts
with an earlier one, the later one is deemed to have repealed the
earlier one, even without express repeal. It upholds two
principles: no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and
Parliament cannot deprive itself of legislating power in any area.

What are constitutional statutes, and how do they relate to the

Doctrine of Implied Repeal?

Constitutional statutes are laws of special constitutional

significance in the UK legal system that cannot be repealed
impliedly, only expressly by Parliament. They limit the Doctrine of
Implied Repeal, ensuring crucial constitutional provisions are not
unintentionally overridden by later statutes.

How do courts uphold Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK legal

system?

Courts uphold Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK legal system

by interpreting statutes according to parliamentary intent, not
challenging the validity of Acts of Parliament, and conducting
judicial review of public authorities' actions to ensure they align
with the legal framework established by Parliament.
:
 Learn with 15 UK Parliamentary Sovereignty
flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

SIGNUP

Join over 22 million students in learning

with our StudySmarter App
Create your free account now
:
: