with the fundamental principles what is a right, not a what those" [11] The supporters of the ideas of domination of the judiciary in the state-legal mechanism the UK it is reasonable to observe that English law - is "basically nothing more than a right judgment." [12]
Secondly, as an argument in favour of the rule, the courts specified in the creative and highly dynamic nature of judicial rights over with statutory, parliamentary law.
Considering the parliamentary purely volitional right as positivist, which together with the natural law is opposed to the right judgment, some researchers a priori based on the fact that where there are gaps in the law or there are no clear rules of conduct, the Court must necessarily to act as the supreme legislative power, forming at the same time its more dynamic and more life compared to statutory law. Third, as one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Court and, accordingly, his "rule" in the law-making sphere, in the legal literature of recent years used the assertion that only the court, and no other public authority, including the Parliament, is capable of to really protect the rights and freedoms of citizens. And fourth, as an argument, designed, on the one hand, to confirm the validity of such phenomena as the sovereignty of the Court, and on the other - to cast doubt on the admissibility of "law-making monopoly" of the Parliament, used postulated the idea that any monopoly in the including the "law-making" is contrary to the basic principles of the unwritten constitution of Great Britain. The relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution Court, the authors develop a thesis, it has always insisted that there should be a "higher power" and "the rule of" one institution over another and, therefore, should not be a "ranking" legal force or other characteristics of outgoing of them acts. [13] For objectivity 's sake it should be noted that this view is not shared by all scientists concerned with the relation of the Parliament and the Court of Great Britain. Pretty common and is quite reasonable position that every legal system, not excluding English, there should be one "sovereign legislator" capable in disputes concerning "the rule" of certain legal acts - sources of law "have the final say." The alternative - a "constitutional crisis" generated "endless disputes and uncertainty." [14] Along with the above, in the English legal literature are other arguments in favour of sovereignty, and the "supremacy" of the Court in the field of law making. In particular, it points out that the restriction of the sovereignty of Parliament associated with the UK 's membership of the European Union and developed in the priority of European law over national law in the English case of conflict between them, automatically leads to the strengthening of the sovereignty and the role of the Court in the law-making process. …show more content…
Similarly, seems the case and due to the increasing influence of international law, particularly in the part that deals with human rights and freedoms, on the UK domestic law.
However, whatever the arguments cited in favour of strengthening the sovereignty of the Court, the fact remains that over the centuries the British legal system has always been built on a very dynamic, changing from century to century compromise, a kind of balance between the legislative and judicial powers, between the Parliament and the Court.
The essence of the law-making sphere of the compromise in the early stages of the English state was the fact that although the palm and belonged acts issued by Parliament, but it has always operated a rule that those who "for whatever reason, it was impossible to implement the considered as having no legal effect. Courts in respect of such acts shall be empowered to make sensible way to enter into that such consequences not anticipated by the Parliament and were free in the solution of the issue of justice. At present, the content of a compromise in the field of law-making between the English Parliament has sovereignty, on the conclusion of the British constitutionalists and judges, only within the existing legal order and only in relation to what is contained in the texts adopted laws and the Court is that - even
Secondly, as an argument in favour of the rule, the courts specified in the creative and highly dynamic nature of judicial rights over with statutory, parliamentary law.
Considering the parliamentary purely volitional right as positivist, which together with the natural law is opposed to the right judgment, some researchers a priori based on the fact that where there are gaps in the law or there are no clear rules of conduct, the Court must necessarily to act as the supreme legislative power, forming at the same time its more dynamic and more life compared to statutory law. Third, as one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Court and, accordingly, his "rule" in the law-making sphere, in the legal literature of recent years used the assertion that only the court, and no other public authority, including the Parliament, is capable of to really protect the rights and freedoms of citizens. And fourth, as an argument, designed, on the one hand, to confirm the validity of such phenomena as the sovereignty of the Court, and on the other - to cast doubt on the admissibility of "law-making monopoly" of the Parliament, used postulated the idea that any monopoly in the including the "law-making" is contrary to the basic principles of the unwritten constitution of Great Britain. The relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution Court, the authors develop a thesis, it has always insisted that there should be a "higher power" and "the rule of" one institution over another and, therefore, should not be a "ranking" legal force or other characteristics of outgoing of them acts. [13] For objectivity 's sake it should be noted that this view is not shared by all scientists concerned with the relation of the Parliament and the Court of Great Britain. Pretty common and is quite reasonable position that every legal system, not excluding English, there should be one "sovereign legislator" capable in disputes concerning "the rule" of certain legal acts - sources of law "have the final say." The alternative - a "constitutional crisis" generated "endless disputes and uncertainty." [14] Along with the above, in the English legal literature are other arguments in favour of sovereignty, and the "supremacy" of the Court in the field of law making. In particular, it points out that the restriction of the sovereignty of Parliament associated with the UK 's membership of the European Union and developed in the priority of European law over national law in the English case of conflict between them, automatically leads to the strengthening of the sovereignty and the role of the Court in the law-making process. …show more content…
Similarly, seems the case and due to the increasing influence of international law, particularly in the part that deals with human rights and freedoms, on the UK domestic law.
However, whatever the arguments cited in favour of strengthening the sovereignty of the Court, the fact remains that over the centuries the British legal system has always been built on a very dynamic, changing from century to century compromise, a kind of balance between the legislative and judicial powers, between the Parliament and the Court.
The essence of the law-making sphere of the compromise in the early stages of the English state was the fact that although the palm and belonged acts issued by Parliament, but it has always operated a rule that those who "for whatever reason, it was impossible to implement the considered as having no legal effect. Courts in respect of such acts shall be empowered to make sensible way to enter into that such consequences not anticipated by the Parliament and were free in the solution of the issue of justice. At present, the content of a compromise in the field of law-making between the English Parliament has sovereignty, on the conclusion of the British constitutionalists and judges, only within the existing legal order and only in relation to what is contained in the texts adopted laws and the Court is that - even