Assessing the relationship between legislative and judicial supremacy in the UK: parliament and the rule of law after Jackson

Chris McCorkindale*, Nick McKerrell

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this article, the authors will consider a very narrow yet spectacularly important aspect of the rule of law: its place in a constitution-the constitution of the United Kingdom-in which supremacy rests not with the constitution as a document to be interpreted by a constitutional court, but with the legislature itself. While traditionally the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament has meant that British courts have had no right to set aside even the most oppressive legislation, recent extra-judicial writings and obiter dicta in case law have been indicative of a shift in the judicial mood. In light of these developments, the paper will ask: Where does the relationship between the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament and the rule of law stand now? Where might that trajectory take us? And what might be done to reconcile the two?.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)341-352
Number of pages12
JournalRound Table
Volume101
Issue number4
Early online date3 Aug 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012

Keywords

  • constitutional principle
  • courts
  • Crown in Parliament
  • J. A. G. Griffith
  • juristocracy
  • justice
  • legislation
  • legislative supremacy
  • Lord Steyn
  • Lord Woolf
  • reasonable disagreement
  • rights
  • rule of law
  • Sir John Laws
  • the political constitution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing the relationship between legislative and judicial supremacy in the UK: parliament and the rule of law after Jackson'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this