Whether or not the judiciary could be considered as a threat to parliamentary sovereignty is debatable. This essay will argue that the judiciary is a threat to parliamentary sovereignty, but it would have been otherwise if the Parliament didn’t carry its seeds of its own destruction. These ‘seeds’; European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998 change almost permanently the approach of courts towards the Parliament’s Acts.
Parliamentary Sovereignty, Freedoms and Rights Prior EU Act 1972 and HRA 1998 AV Dicey gives a solid definition of what is parliamentary sovereignty. That definition underpins three basic principles1: Parliament may enact laws on any subject matter it chooses
No Parliament may be bound by a predecessor or bind a successor-implied repeal doctrine, if an Act of Parliament is inconsistent with an earlier statute, the later Act is taken to repeal the first2 No person or body – including a court of law- may question the validity Parliament’s Acts3
Carry on to freedoms and Rights its vital to state that UK due to its constitutional nature-non codified constitution- has little to show about the protection of rights and freedoms before the enactment of HRA 1998.Unlikely with the USA, where the constitution is codified and citizens know their rights, freedoms and obligations and since constitution there is considered as the higher law they are protected from government upholding their rights4. Moreover it would not be extreme to state that UK citizens didn’t really have rights before HRA 1998, rather were enjoying freedoms that weren’t defined as illegal by the state.
However after the implementation of EU Act 1972 and HRA 1998, it can be said that certain rights and freedoms have been established in society. Rights could be understood as a claim5, a claim against the state upholding their rights.
European Communities Act 1972
Entering the EEC (after the treaty of Maastricht changed its name to EU), UK needed the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document