Scope of Parliamentary Sovereignty as defined by Dicey, and arguments against it by various academics.

Parliament can also legislate for all persons and all places. If the English law says diving in the Maldives is an offence, it is an offence for an Englishmen, even though the Maldivian law permits it. Any act of Parliament will be valid if it has received the royal assent.

However as Allan (1988) argues a parliament enactment whose effects would be destruction of any form of democracy could not be applied by the courts as law. Judicial obedience to the statute would plainly undermine the political principles the doctrine serves to protect. It can only reflect a judicial choice based on an understanding of what political morality depends.

Each Parliament can enjoy the same unlimited power as any Parliament before it. No Parliament can enact rules, which limit future Parliament. Parliament can repeal any previous law by declaring the law to be repealed. However it is impossible for a Parliament to say that there can be no repeal from a future Parliament regarding a similar statute.

However in matters like granting of Independence to colonies, as Lord Denning states 'freedom once given cannot be revoked'.

According to Sir Ivor Jennings: Legal Sovereignty is merely a name indicating that the legislature has for the time being power to make laws of any kind in the manner required by law. Legal sovereignty may impose legal limitations upon itself, because its powers to affecting itself. He says Dicey failed to prove that the law made the king in Parliament a sovereign law making body. If UK parliament has given legislature powers to South Africa and New South Wales, no control pertains to Parliament of UK.

At a lower level, there is granting of limited autonomy, defined by act of parliament and control of courts, whereby local authorities enjoy some self-governance.

It is said that, no one may question the validity of an act of Parliament. However Dr Bonham's case in 1610 it was said, when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed the common law will control it and decide such act to be void.

But according to Lord Reid such ideas as Christian law has become obsolete and Parliamentary supremacy demonstrates.

Parliament and the courts have been careful not to act so as to cause conflict between them. In the case of Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] the plaintiff questioned the court about the validity of the Private Railways Act. But the court was unwilling and According to Lord Morris, it is the function of the courts to administer the laws, which Parliament has enacted. In the process of Parliament there will be much consideration whether a bill should or should not in one form or another become an enactment. When an enactment is passed there is finality unless and until it is amended or repealed by Parliament. In the courts there may be argument as to the correct interpretation of the enactment: there must be none as to whether it should be on the statute book at all.'

Theoretically, the Parliament may remain free to enact laws violating any or all of the United Kingdom's international obligations. But in practice it could not. Today UK as with most states are bound by numerous treaties, under international law, which imposes restrictions on freedom of government action. For instance, protection of human rights and agreements on tariffs and trade. It is also bound by terms of European Union and United Nations.

Dicey himself argued that under fundamentally different socio economic and political conditions, may limit the exercise of sovereign power.

Due to the increase of powerful pressure groups; there have been occasions where the sovereignty of the government has been overpowered by pressure groups by forcing Parliament to revise laws it has made. An example of this could be in the 1970s when trade unions forced Parliament to amend the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. As Sir Jennings (1959) said, Parliament passes many laws, which people do not want. But it never passes any law which substantial section of the population violently dislikes. Yet if sovereignty is supreme power, parliament is not supreme, but the people.

Bibliography:

- Constitutions & Administrative Law, Hillarie Barnett, Cavendish, 2000

- http://www.essaybank.co.uk/essays/618.php