One of the key characteristics of British Constitution is the dominance of the Parliament. The Parliament is the main legislative body in British Constitution. It is bicameral; and is composed of two chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The main functions of the Parliament are to sustain the executive by authorizing the raising and spending of funds, to hold the executive to account and to scrutinize and to approve or amend the legislations. The classic definition of parliamentary sovereignty was given by A. V. Dicey, a constitutional scholar and is composed by several rules: Parliament is competent to legislate on any subject-matter, no Parliament can bind its successors or can be bound by its predecessors and no other body than Parliament has the ability to override or set aside an Act of Parliament (this mechanism is called the implied repeal). Since 1970, the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty has evolved because of several factors such as the entry of the United Kingdom in the Europe with the European Communities Act in 1972, the adoption of the Human Rights Act in 1998 and the process of devolution since 1998. The aim of this essay is to discuss about the profound transformations that the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been subject to.
[...] Ewing, 14th Edition, Harlow The evolution of a Constitution, Eight key moments in British Constitutional History, E. Wicks, Hart Publishing Constitutional History of the UK, Anne Lyon, Cavendish Publishing www.parliament.uk Case 129/79 (1980) ICR 672 (1983) 2AC 751 Case 14/83 (1984) ECR 1891 Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal Spa CMLR 263 (1976) CMLR 655 (1991) 1 AC 603 (2004) UKHL 30 R v DPP, ex parte Kebilene (200) 2 AC The Constitution of the United Kingdom The Evolution of a Constitution, E. Wicks, page 177 Non-governmental organization, wrote the report: “Scotland's Parliament. [...]
[...] The classic definition of parliamentary sovereignty was given by Dicey and is composed by several rules: Parliament is competent to legislate on any subject-matter, no Parliament can bind its successors or can be bound by its predecessors and no other body than Parliament has the ability to override or set aside an Act of Parliament (this mechanism is called the implied repeal). Since 1970, the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty has evolved because of several factors; the entrance of the United Kingdom in the Europe with the European Communities Act in 1972, the adoption of the Human Rights Act in 1998 and the process of devolution since 1998 too. The aim of this essay is to discuss about the profound transformations that the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been subject to. [...]
[...] Indeed, the ECA bind future parliament because of its obligation to pass legislation conform to Community law: if a statute fails to be conform to EC law the doctrine of implied repeal will not apply and the Act will be overridden by the EC legal principle, by the courts. But it can also be argued that this limitation constitutes a will of the Parliament when it passed the ECA and as an ultimate proof of parliamentary sovereignty, the parliament still has the power to repeal the ECA. Another factor which has deeply modified the classic view of parliamentary sovereignty is the Human Rights Act 1998. [...]
[...] Indeed, it is up to the Parliament to decide if it wishes to amend or to repeal the offending legislation. Even if parliamentary sovereignty is respected in its form it appears as an important dilemma for the public authorities to apply a legislation which has been declare incompatible with the Convention, knowing that the case could be bring before European court. That is the reason why, Lord Nicholls stated that the Parliament has, himself, retained the right to enact legislation which is not Convention compliant, and furthermore after a declaration of incompatibility the government is expected to introduce primary legislation to remove the incompatibility, like for example the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which was the Antiterrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. [...]
[...] Indeed, it gives an important power to the courts in order to interpret legislation in a way which is in accordance with the Act. Finally, the devolution has limited the fields of subjects in which Parliament can pass acts, but also has developed a political practice which reduce his room for manoeuvre, as such as the “Sewel Convention” for example. It can be said that the evolution of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty seems to be more a question of practice than theory. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
