Parliamentary sovereignty

1. Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty is a central principle of the United Kingdom constitutional law, and it forms the bedrock of its legal system. It asserts that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, and its laws cannot be overridden by any other body, including the courts. This article will delve into the meaning of parliamentary sovereignty, its historical development, its practical implications, challenges to the principle, and its current status in light of significant constitutional changes. It will also explore how this concept differs from other forms of government and legal systems. Understanding parliamentary sovereignty is crucial for comprehending the British constitutional framework and its ongoing evolution.

Historical Development

The roots of parliamentary sovereignty can be traced back to the gradual shift of power from the monarch to Parliament over several centuries. This process began with the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the King’s power for the first time. However, the real foundation was laid during the 17th century, particularly during the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Prior to the Civil War, the monarch often asserted the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ – the belief that their authority came directly from God and was therefore absolute. The conflict between King Charles I and Parliament challenged this doctrine. The execution of Charles I and the subsequent establishment of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell, though not a parliamentary system in the modern sense, demonstrated the possibility of governance without a monarch.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was pivotal. It saw the deposition of James II and the invitation of William and Mary to rule, but crucially, on terms defined by Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 formally established parliamentary supremacy. This document explicitly limited the powers of the monarch and affirmed the rights of Parliament, including its control over taxation, law-making, and the army.

The case of *Godden v Hales* (1686) is often cited as an early judicial affirmation of parliamentary supremacy. This case established that an Act of Parliament could override the common law. Further solidifying the principle was the landmark case of *R v City of London Corporation* (1892), where the court explicitly stated that Parliament could make or unmake any law whatsoever, and no court could question its validity. This cemented the doctrine that Parliament's laws are binding on all, including future Parliaments. The concept of implied repeal developed, meaning that a later Act of Parliament could implicitly override an earlier one, even without explicitly stating so.

Core Principles

Several core principles underpin parliamentary sovereignty:

• Absolute Legal Authority: Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever. There are no inherent legal limits to its legislative power.
• No Parliament Can Bind Its Successors: Each Parliament is sovereign in its own time. A Parliament cannot pass a law that would be binding on future Parliaments. This is known as the ‘orthogonality of Parliaments’. This prevents a Parliament from entrenching legislation and making it impossible for a subsequent Parliament to repeal or amend it. This is a key difference from constitutions with entrenched provisions like the United States Constitution.
• Courts Cannot Strike Down Acts of Parliament: The courts are bound to apply Acts of Parliament, even if they believe them to be unjust, immoral, or incompatible with international law. This is a cornerstone of the system, preventing judicial overreach. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced a degree of complexity, discussed later.
• No Higher Authority: There is no external body, such as an international court or treaty, that can override an Act of Parliament. While international law can influence legislation, Parliament retains the ultimate power to decide whether or not to incorporate it into domestic law.

Practical Implications

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has far-reaching practical implications for the UK legal and political system:

• Law-Making Process: Parliament is the primary law-making body. Legislation typically begins as a Bill, which is debated and voted on in the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent from the monarch to become an Act of Parliament.
• Constitutional Change: Constitutional changes in the UK are often achieved through Acts of Parliament. Unlike many countries with codified constitutions, the UK constitution is largely unwritten and evolves through legislation, case law, and convention. For example, the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted legislative independence to Dominions of the British Empire, was an Act of Parliament.
• Judicial Review: While courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament, they can interpret them. Judicial review allows courts to examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they are acting within the law. However, this review is limited to determining whether the actions were lawful under the relevant Act of Parliament, not whether the Act itself is valid. Concepts like proportionality and legitimate expectation are often considered during judicial review.
• Devolution: The devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland was achieved through Acts of Parliament. However, these Acts did *not* grant these devolved bodies sovereignty; their powers are delegated by Parliament and can be reclaimed. Devolution is a complex area, with differing levels of autonomy granted to each region.

Challenges to Parliamentary Sovereignty

Despite its long-standing status, parliamentary sovereignty has faced several challenges in recent decades:

• Membership of the European Union (EU): While the UK was a member of the EU, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty was arguably compromised. EU law took precedence over conflicting UK law in areas where the UK had ceded sovereignty to the EU. The concept of "direct effect" meant that certain EU laws could be directly applied by UK courts without needing to be implemented through an Act of Parliament. The European Communities Act 1972 was the primary legislation governing this relationship. This created tension, with some arguing that Parliament had effectively limited its own sovereignty.
• Human Rights Act 1998: This Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. While it did not grant courts the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, it required them to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way that is compatible with the Convention. If legislation is incompatible, the courts can issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, which puts political pressure on Parliament to amend the law. This is a significant, though indirect, limitation on parliamentary sovereignty. This Act also introduced a new level of scrutiny for legislation, increasing the focus on fundamental rights.
• Devolution: The devolution settlements, while not granting sovereignty, have created a more complex constitutional landscape. The devolved legislatures have significant powers in their respective areas, and there is ongoing debate about the extent to which Parliament should intervene in devolved matters.
• International Law: While Parliament is not legally bound by international law, there is increasing pressure on it to comply with international norms and obligations. Treaties and conventions can influence legislation, and non-compliance can have political and diplomatic consequences.
• Brexit: The decision to leave the EU, and the subsequent passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, were presented as a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. However, Brexit also raised questions about the future relationship between the UK and international law, and the potential for future limitations on parliamentary power. The Withdrawal Act, while repealing the European Communities Act 1972, also preserved a significant body of EU-derived law, creating a hybrid system.

Current Status and Ongoing Debates

Following Brexit, parliamentary sovereignty is, in theory, fully restored. Parliament is no longer subject to the overriding authority of EU law. However, the debate over its true extent continues.

Some argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ongoing influence of international law continue to limit parliamentary sovereignty. Others point to the increasing complexity of the UK constitution and the growing power of judicial review as further challenges.

There is also a debate about whether parliamentary sovereignty is desirable. Some argue that it gives too much power to Parliament and that a codified constitution with entrenched rights would be a better safeguard against abuses of power. Proponents of parliamentary sovereignty, however, argue that it allows for flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances. They believe that it reflects the democratic principle of popular sovereignty – the idea that ultimate power resides in the people, who elect their representatives to Parliament.

The concept of “constitutional statutes” has gained traction in academic circles. These are statutes considered fundamental to the constitution, such as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Human Rights Act. While not legally entrenched, there is a view that these statutes should be given greater weight and that Parliament should be reluctant to repeal or amend them lightly.

Comparison with Other Systems

Parliamentary sovereignty is distinct from other forms of government and legal systems:

• United States: The US Constitution is a codified, entrenched document. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can strike down laws passed by Congress if they are deemed unconstitutional. This is a clear contrast to the UK system.
• Germany: Germany has a Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which, while amendable, contains ‘eternal clauses’ that cannot be altered. The Federal Constitutional Court has the power to review legislation and ensure its compliance with the Basic Law.
• France: France has a semi-presidential system with a written constitution and a Constitutional Council that can review legislation.
• Canada: Canada has a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, but its constitution is partially codified and contains entrenched provisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has the power of judicial review.

Understanding these differences highlights the unique nature of the UK constitutional framework and the central role of parliamentary sovereignty within it. The ongoing debates and challenges demonstrate that parliamentary sovereignty is not a static concept but rather a dynamic principle that continues to evolve in response to changing political and legal circumstances. The interplay between Constitutional Law, Political Science, and Legal History is crucial when analyzing this complex topic. Further study into Public Law and International Relations can also provide valuable insights. Analyzing current Political Trends and Legislative Updates is vital for staying informed about developments in this area. Consider exploring Comparative Constitutionalism to broaden your understanding. Resources like Hansard (the official report of parliamentary debates) provide primary source material. Tools for Legal Research are essential for deeper investigation. Monitoring Parliamentary Committees can offer insights into policy development. Analyzing Case Law Databases is crucial for understanding judicial interpretations. Following Constitutional Reform initiatives is key to tracking changes. Examining EU Law (even post-Brexit) remains relevant. Understanding Devolutionary Politics is vital. Researching the impact of the Human Rights Act is essential. Exploring the role of the Monarchy provides context. Analyzing Public Opinion on constitutional issues is valuable. Considering the implications of Globalisation is important. Studying Legal Theory provides a deeper understanding of the underlying principles. Investigating Political Philosophy sheds light on the justifications for different constitutional models. Utilizing Statutory Interpretation techniques is crucial for understanding legislation. Analyzing Judicial Reasoning provides insights into court decisions. Monitoring Civil Liberties is essential for protecting fundamental rights. Exploring the impact of Digital Technology on constitutional law is increasingly important. Understanding the role of Media Law is vital. Analyzing Administrative Law provides context. Studying Criminal Justice can reveal constitutional implications. Monitoring International Treaties is crucial. Researching Environmental Law can highlight constitutional issues. Examining Economic Law can reveal constitutional implications.

Start Trading Now

Sign up at IQ Option (Minimum deposit $10) Open an account at Pocket Option (Minimum deposit $5)

Join Our Community

Subscribe to our Telegram channel @strategybin to receive: ✓ Daily trading signals ✓ Exclusive strategy analysis ✓ Market trend alerts ✓ Educational materials for beginners