Challenging parliamentary sovereignty: Past, present and future

Jeffrey Goldsworthy

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511781490.011

10 - Challenging parliamentary sovereignty: Past, present and future

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2010

Jeffrey Goldsworthy

Show author details

Jeffrey Goldsworthy: Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Some critics portray the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as a myth that conceals the true nature of constitutionalism in Britain and other common law jurisdictions. In reality, they say, Parliament and the courts are engaged in a ‘collaborative enterprise’, with sovereignty divided between them; or the constitution is ultimately based on a common law ‘principle of legality’ which the courts, rather than Parliament, have ultimate authority to interpret and enforce.

Sometimes the critics really seem to be suggesting that the constitution is evolving inexorably in this direction. In fact, there are at least four different claims they might be making, which are not all mutually compatible. The first is that Parliament was never sovereign: that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was always mistaken as a matter of law. The second is that, even if Parliament is accepted as sovereign today, this is a relatively recent deviation from a venerable constitutional tradition that should now be restored. The third is that even if Parliament was once sovereign, recent developments mean that it no longer is. The fourth is that even if Parliament was and still is sovereign, times are rapidly changing, and it is unlikely to retain sovereignty for much longer. Those who make the second, third or fourth claim often argue that parliamentary sovereignty is a doctrine of judge-made common law, which the courts may therefore unilaterally curtail. That argument has already been refuted.

Type: Chapter
Information: Parliamentary Sovereignty
Contemporary Debates
, pp. 267 - 318

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781490.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Joseph, Philip A., ‘Parliament, the Courts, and the Collaborative Enterprise’ King's College Law Journal 15 (2004) 321 at 333Google Scholar

Kavanagh, A., Constitutional Review Under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 414Google Scholar

Lakin, S., ‘Debunking the Idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: the Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (2008) 709CrossRef Google Scholar

Edlin, Douglas E., Judges and Unjust Laws, Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008)CrossRef Google Scholar

Edlin, D. (ed.), Common Law Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), ch. 8.CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, I., ‘Dr Bonham's Case and “Void” Statutes’ Journal of Legal History 27 (2006) 111CrossRef Google Scholar

Hamburger, P., Law and Judicial Duty (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008)CrossRef Google Scholar

Helmholz, R., ‘Bonham's case, Judicial Review and the Law of Nature’ (2009) J. of Legal Analysis 325CrossRef Google Scholar

Goldsworthy, J., The Sovereignty of Parliament, History and Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 165–73Google Scholar

McLean, I. and McMillan, A., ‘Professor Dicey's Contradictions’ Public Law (2007) 435 at 441Google Scholar

Dickinson, H.T. and Lynch, M. (eds.), The Challenge to Westminster; Sovereignty, Devolution and Independence (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 2000), 22 at p. 24Google Scholar

Goodare, J., The Government of Scotland 1560–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ford, J.D., ‘The Legal Provisions in the Acts of Union’ Cambridge Law Journal 66 (2007) 106 at 136, n. 137CrossRef Google Scholar

Ford, J.D., Law and Opinion in Scotland During the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007), pp. 322–4, 326 and 428Google Scholar

Joseph, P., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (3rd edn) (Wellington: Thomson/Brookers, 2007), p. 544Google Scholar

Dicey, A.V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn) (London: Macmillan, 1959), p. 72Google Scholar

Ekins, R., ‘The Myth of Constitutional Dialogue: Final Legal Authority, Parliament and the Courts’ (2004) Bell Gully Public Lecture, 5 (unpublished, on file with author)Google Scholar

Bigwood, R. (ed.), The Statute: Making and Meaning (Wellington: LexisNexis, 2004), p. 187Google Scholar

Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 93–4Google Scholar

Joseph, Philip A., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (Sydney: Law Book Co., 1993)Google Scholar

Joseph, Philip A., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (2nd edn) (Wellington: Brookers, 2001), pp. 3, 16Google Scholar

Forsyth, C., ‘Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review’ Cambridge Law Journal 55 (1996) 122CrossRef Google Scholar

Forsyth, C. (ed.), Judicial Review and the Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000)Google Scholar

Wade, H.W.R. and Forsyth, C.F., Administrative Law (9th edn) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 39Google Scholar

Craig, P., ‘Competing Models of Judicial Review’ Public Law 428 (1999) 433–5Google Scholar

Craig, P., ‘Constitutional Foundations, the Rule of Law and Supremacy’ Public Law 92 (2003) esp. at 107–10Google Scholar

Craig, P., ‘The Common Law, Shared Power and Judicial Review’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 (2004) 237CrossRef Google Scholar

Craig, P. and Bamforth, N., ‘Constitutional Analysis, Constitutional Principle and Judicial Review’ Public Law 763 (2001) esp. at 768–71.Google Scholar

Allan, T.R.S., ‘Legislative Supremacy and Legislative Intent: A Reply to Professor Craig’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 (2004) 563CrossRef Google Scholar

Endicott, T., ‘Constitutional Logic’ University of Toronto Law Journal 53 (2003) 201CrossRef Google Scholar

Halpin, A., ‘The Theoretical Controversy Concerning Judicial Review’ Modern Law Review 64 (2001) 500, esp. at 501–6CrossRef Google Scholar

Aronson, M., Dyer, B. and Groves, M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd edn) (Sydney: Lawbook Co., 2004), pp. 101–2Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., ‘Reflections on Fidelity’ Fordham Law Review 65 (1997) 1799 at 1816Google Scholar

Evans, J., ‘Reading Down Statutes’, in Bigwood, R. (ed.), The Statute; Making and Meaning (Wellington: LexisNexis, 2004), p. 123Google Scholar

Farber, D., ‘Courts, Statutes, and Public Policy: the Case of the Murderous Heir’ Southern Methodist University Law Review 53 (2000) 37Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Law's Empire (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1986)Google Scholar

Marmor, A., Interpretation and Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)Google Scholar

Schauer, F., Playing By the Rules: a Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 209–10Google Scholar

Wade, H.W.R. and Forsyth, C.F., Administrative Law (7th edn) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 737Google Scholar

Allan, T.R.S., ‘Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitutionalism’ Cambridge Law Journal 44 (1995) 111 at 127Google Scholar

Allan, T.R.S., Constitutional Justice; a Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 211–12Google Scholar

Saunders, C., ‘Plaintiff S157: A case-study in common law constitutionalism’ Australian Journal of Administrative Law 12 (2005) 115 at 117 and 125Google Scholar

Wade, Sir William, Constitutional Fundamentals (rev'd edn) (London: Stevens & Sons, 1989), p. 86Google Scholar

Slaughter, A.M., Sweet, A.S. and Weiler, J.H.H. (eds.), The European Court and National Courts; Doctrine and Jurisprudence (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998), 195 at p. 204Google Scholar

Lindell, G., ‘The Statutory Protection of Rights and Parliamentary Sovereignty: Guidance From the United Kingdom?’ Public Law Review 17 (2006) 188 at 195Google Scholar

Nicol, D., EC Membership and the Judicialization of British Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 182CrossRef Google Scholar

Young, A., Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar

Kavanagh, A., Constitutional Review Under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), ch. 11Google Scholar

Dicey, A.V., An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn), Wade, E.C.S., (ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1959), p. 40Google Scholar

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd edn) (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), pp. 231–5Google Scholar

Tomkins, A., Public Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003), pp. 117–19Google Scholar

Ellis, E., ‘Supremacy of Parliament and the European Law’ Law Quarterly Review 96 (1980) 511 at 513Google Scholar

Bennion, F., Statutory Interpretation (4th edn) (London: Butterworths, 2002), pp. 254–5Google Scholar

Joseph, S. and Castan, M., Federal Constitutional Law, A Contemporary View (2nd edn) (Sydney: Lawbook Co., 2006), pp. 226–41Google Scholar

Hartley, T.C., Constitutional Problems of the European Union (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999), pp. 172–3

Wade, Sir William, ‘Sovereignty – Revolution or Evolution?’ Law Quarterly Review 112 (1996) 568 at 570Google Scholar

Jowell, J. and Oliver, D. (eds.), The Changing Constitution (6th edn) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 84 at p. 97Google Scholar

Mullen, Tom, ‘Reflections on Jackson v. Attorney-General: questioning sovereignty’ Legal Studies 27 (2007) 1 at 12–13CrossRef Google Scholar

Waldron, J., Law and Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 12CrossRef Google Scholar

Nicol, D., ‘The Human Rights Act and the Politicians’ Legal Studies 24 (2004) 451, esp. at 454–5CrossRef Google Scholar

Elliott, M., ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty and the New Constitutional Order: Legislative Freedom, Political Reality, and Convention’ Legal Studies 22 (2002) 340CrossRef Google Scholar

Elliott, M., ‘United Kingdom: Parliamentary Sovereignty Under Pressure’ International Journal of Constitutional Law 2 (2004) 545CrossRef Google Scholar

Rawlings, R. (ed.), Law, Society and Economy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 273 at p. 281Google Scholar

Mason, Sir Anthony, ‘Commentary’ Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27 (2002) 172 at 175Google Scholar

Tremblay, L., ‘Section 7 of the Charter: Substantive Due Process’ (1984) 18 UBC Law Review 201 at 242Google Scholar

Burrows, J., ‘The Changing Approach to the Interpretation of Statutes’ Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 33 (2002) 981 at 982–3Google Scholar

Finnis, J., ‘Nationality, Alienage and Constitutional Principle’ Law Quarterly Review 123 (2007) 417 at 417Google Scholar

Pearce, D.C. and Geddes, R.S., Statutory Interpretation in Australia (5th edn) (Sydney: Butterworths, 2001), p. 131Google Scholar

Bell, J. and Engle, G., Statutory Interpretation (3rd edn) (London: Butterworths, 1995), 166Google Scholar

Eskridge, W. and Frickey, P., ‘Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules as Constitutional Lawmaking’ Vanderbilt Law Review 45 (1992) 593Google Scholar

Allan, T.R.S., ‘Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitutionalism’ Cambridge Law Journal 44 (1985) 111CrossRef Google Scholar

Laws, Sir John, ‘Constitutional Guarantees’ Statute Law Review 29 (2008) 1 at 8CrossRef Google Scholar

Evans, J., ‘Controlling the Use of Parliamentary History’ New Zealand Universities Law Review 18 (1998) 1 at 44Google Scholar

Jowell, J., ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty Under the New Constitutional Hypothesis’ Public Law 562 (2006) 575 (emphasis added)Google Scholar

Pound, R., ‘Spurious Interpretation’ Columbia Law Review 6 (1907) 379Google Scholar

Chambers, R., A Course of Lectures on the English Law Delivered at the University of Oxford 1767–1773, Curley, T.M. (ed.) (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), vol. I, p. 141Google Scholar

Brougham, H., ‘Review of Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in England, by James Allan’ Edinburgh Review 52 (1830) 139 and 142Google Scholar

Austin, J., The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, H.L.A. Hart (ed.) (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1954), pp. 257–8Google Scholar

Jowell, Jeffrey, ‘Beyond the Rule of Law: Towards Constitutional Judicial Review’ Public Law 671 (2000) 675Google Scholar

Keir, D.L. and Lawson, F.H., Cases in Constitutional Law (4th edn rev.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), p. 10Google Scholar

Devlin, Lord, ‘Judges as Lawmakers’ Modern Law Review 39 (1976) 1 at 14Google Scholar

Laws, Sir John, ‘Illegality and the Problem of Jurisdiction’, in M. Supperstone and J. Goldie (eds.), Judicial Review (2nd edn) (London: Butterworths, 1997), 4.17Google Scholar