Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Volume 62 Issue 2
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 62 - Issue 2 - 01 July 2003

Contents

Page 2 of 2

Articles

  • Dicey Was Not Diceyan

  • Rivka Weill
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 August 2003, pp. 474-493

  • There is an apparent paradox between Dicey's treatment of parliamentary sovereignty as the central premise of the British constitution and his advocacy of the referendum, a tool of popular sovereignty. Bogdanor wrote:

    [i]t is paradoxical that Dicey should have been the first to advocate the referendum in Britain, for he was the author of the classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). Foremost among the principles there identified as central to the British Constitution was the sovereignty of Parliament—a principle generally held to preclude the referendum.

    Cosgrove, who wrote an authoritative biography on Dicey, explained that Dicey turned to the referendum in his search for a device that would prevent Home Rule. Dicey's commitment to defeat Home Rule, he wrote, distorted his judgment.

Book Reviews

Page 2 of 2