Rule Of Law Analysis

Good Essays
The definition of the rule of law has been expounded upon since Dicey, and other theorists have drawn up principles they consider to be key in defining the rule of law. Lord Bingham, for example, favours a more thick conception of the rule of law where ‘substantive’ elements are also protected, such as fundamental human rights. He also believed there must be compliance by the state towards its international legal obligations.

Due to the United Kingdoms’ dualist nature, the Human Rights Act is derived from the European Convention of Human Rights. When looking at the Human Rights Act, the initial section 3(1) may raise the possibility that parliamentary sovereignty is limited as it requires courts to give effect to ‘primary and subordinate
…show more content…
It then lies in Parliament to change or repeal that part of a statue if it decides to. This upholds the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. In this aspect of legislation, parliamentary sovereignty wins out agains Dicey’s definition of the rule of law as the judiciary can only issue a declaration of incompatibility which just draws the issue to parliament - they cannot repeal it, and indeed whilst the declaration of incompatibility is announced the legislation is still in force. Bingham’s definition of the rule of law though incorporates the protection of fundamental human rights, and in this case allows both principles to work in …show more content…
There are many points in which the principles conflict over - the ability of judges being initially unable to challenge an act in parliament growing into one where some judges feel where an act of parliament breaches the rule of law they would be able to, where the expansion of the definition of the rule of law by other theorists includes international laws in which the limit parliamentary sovereignty to a certain degree. In the end, there have been conflicting decisions made in cases affecting both principles, but when looking at more recent cases such as Jackson v Attorney General and it’s suggestion of the judiciary being able scrutinise parliamentary sovereignty in favour of the rule of law it suggests that the principle may be held as of similar importance to the British constitution as the principle of parliamentary sovereignty

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Thus, there is something uneasy about upholding moral principles society cannot agree upon, especially when this process has no other virtues. Judges deferring to Parliamentary decisions However, there is great tension as soon as we change our beliefs on the nature of law and hence, the legal reasoning implemented regarding the extent to which judges shape the law. For example, with positivism – under either Hart or Kelsen – law is separate from morality. Under Hart’s theory, there is some room for judges to apply discretion, as rules have a core of easy meaning and application, and a penumbra of uncertainty. However, for the most part, judges are to apply the clear legal rules which are posited.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Constitutionally speaking, judges cannot control executive and legislative power because of parliamentary sovereignty. This severely weakens the judiciary 's power to control the executive. However, in practical terms, the judiciary does have some power to control the executive and Parliament. The judiciary can, to some extent, control the executive and the legislature because of the rule of law, the rights and liberties of citizens and judicial review. However, despite these few powers, the judiciary can ultimately only control the power of the executive and the legislature in the short term, as in the long run Parliament can change any law, making whatever it wanted to do legal.…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Judicial Precedent Essay

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This potentially wasted a lot of time and money going through the different courts, in a case which any Judge of sound mind could have amended the common law, but were bound by the doctrine. There are instances when the Practice Statement is not a sufficient way of remedying a situation and departing from previous precedent. In the case of R v Khawaja Lord Scarman clarified when it is right to use the Practice Statement to depart from a previous decision and this case was not. The defendant in this case was relying on previous precedent laid out in Zamir. Lord…

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Marmor's Argument Analysis

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Indeed, there are several more arguments I would like to have made to defend my stance, but I think the arguments I have made in this paper are the ones that cut closest to the true danger of removing judicial supremacy. Essentially, my argument is this. We need an institution responsible to set the boundaries for the legislative playing field. It does not make sense for the legislature to be the one to set its own boundaries because it will pervert the playing field to favor itself, perhaps by shifting boundaries to favor constituent majorities or by making the boundaries optional so it can cease more power for itself. Instead, we should have an impartial court to referee the legislative game we collectively…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Essay On Judicial Review

    • 1438 Words
    • 6 Pages

    I will then argue that the current procedures and principles in place are not entirely effective or sufficient for the benefit of the individual and therefore in need of being reformed. Finally, I will outline the principles & procedures of human rights law and argue that though Parliament has intended well with the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law , there are sizeable gaps that are yet to be determined and, as such, noticeable failings with regards to the accessibility of justice. Judicial review is a procedure by which an individual or interest group challenges the legality of a decision made by a public body. In other words, it provides “legal redress…

    • 1438 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Introduction Legal formalism is a belief, in the capacity of legal rules, to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness. Formalism posits that judicial interpreters can and should be tightly constrained by the objectively determinable meaning of a statute; if unelected judges exercise much discretion in these cases, democratic governance is threatened. Legal-formalist have been severely criticised by, among others, legal realist and critical legal studies scholars. This essay aims to discuss the criticism of legal formalism by the above mentioned movement and school of thought. This will be achieved by critically engaging with questions of whether criticisms of legal…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His dissenting opinions are astoundingly full of strict interpretations of the Constitutional text, which is how the formalist approach is meant to operate. But, we can also see how the formalist approach is compared to the idea of judicial restraint in his opinions. He calls several times for these political questions to be answered elsewhere, beyond the reach of the court. In doing so he is implying that the powers granted by the Constitution to the judicial branch shall not be overreached, and if they were to an answer political question that is precisely what they would be doing. Instead, he calls upon the court to interpret the text of the constitution strictly, in spite of the changing times which might inspire some justices of the court to do…

    • 2172 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a doctrine that gives parliament the supreme law making power within the UK, which is essential to other branches of the government to operate efficiently. The notion that the rule of law does eclipse parliamentary sovereignty, largely lacks the evidence to be upheld, and accepted by all, as much more commonly the parliamentary sovereignty is eclipsed by the other, more practical factors some of them being politics, the electorate, the majority based system, and the reasonability of the parliament itself. However such notion does have a right to exist with the little evidence that is present to suggest that, that the doctrine of rule of law, which stands to protect not only its core legal principles, but further…

    • 1865 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Courts are bound to apply (properly made) Acts of Parliament, according to their meaning (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0013/P'SOV299.htm). Confirmed by Lord Reid in **Madzimbamuto -> it is often said that it would be unconstitutional, for moral or political reasons, for…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Government Vs Constitution

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He also argues that the judiciary merely has the power of judgment, rather than force or will, and that the judiciary depends on the other two branches to support its judgments. However, when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this decision stands since it is deemed “the supreme law of the land”. In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall argued that it is a responsibility of the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional legislation in accordance to the judges’ “oath or affirmation” to uphold the Constitution, as described in Article VI. Although Hamilton argues that the judiciary is in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced” by the other two branches of government, with judicial review the Supreme Court can decide if a treaty violates the provisions of existing law or…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays