Parliamentary sovereignty under the new constitutional hypothesis.
Questions whether Dicey's belief that the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty took priority over the rule of law still holds true, or whether the courts are beginning to acquire, and exercise, the power to challenge Acts of Parliament. Considers the nature of an unwritten constitution, the concept of power and authority in a constitutional democracy, the challenge raised to the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 in R. (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General, and dicta in Jackson challenging the absolute sovereign authority of Parliament. Identifies two possible justifications for limiting Parliamentary sovereignty: legitimacy and the changing hypothesis of constitutionalism, based primarily on the judicial review of administrative action.
|Title:||Parliamentary sovereignty under the new constitutional hypothesis|
|Additional information:||Sweet & Maxwell publication available with subscription|
|Keywords:||Acts of Parliament, judicial review, legitimacy, parliamentary sovereignty, Rule of law, validity|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Arts and Social Sciences > Faculty of Laws|
Archive Staff Only