• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"In form, the Human Rights Act (HRA) is compatible with parliamentary sovereignty. In practice, it will reduce such sovereignty to almost nothing." Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


"In form, the Human Rights Act (HRA) is compatible with parliamentary sovereignty. In practice, it will reduce such sovereignty to almost nothing." Discuss. Parliamentary sovereignty is one of the pillars of the UK's unwritten constitution. It is often elucidated by reference to the orthodox Diceyan view which provides that Parliament is the supreme legislative authority in English law. In opposition, other forms of Parliamentary sovereignty have been posited, such as the "common law approach" and "pluralist approach" (Armstrong, 2003). But by far, the most sustained attack on Dicey's views has come with the argument that a Parliament may limit its successors as to "manner and form" (Sir Ivor Jennings, 1959). Despite criticism from Sir Ivor Jennings, among others, Dicey and his analysis of this fundamental constitutional rule have retained a notable influence in public law. Thus, it seems appropriate that his interpretation is applied when examining the effects of the Human Rights Act on Parliamentary sovereignty. Dicey's (1961) legal theory may be distinguished as two halves - the positive limb articulates that "Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever"; while the negative limb asseverates that "no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" (p.3). In essence this legal doctrine may be encapsulated in four statements: Parliament may pass legislation concerning anything; it may neither bind its successors nor be bound by its predecessors; and only Parliament can change or reverse an Act of Parliament. Wade (1955) furthered this by stating that the only limit to Parliament's legal power is that it cannot detract from its own continuing sovereignty. The idea of Parliamentary supremacy is deemed to have undergone erosion from several directions, of which incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into UK domestic law is one. As a matter of international law the UK has been bound by the ECHR's terms since the 1960s (Tomkins, 2003). ...read more.


If afforded a broad meaning, section 3 could be seen as authorising domestic courts to adopt the type of interpretative techniques proposed by the ECJ in Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA Case C-106/89 [1990] ECR I-4135. Notably, the phrase "so far as it is possible to do so" in section 3 is an almost verbatim echo of the ECH formula concerning the scope of domestic courts' interpretative autonomy in Marleasing (Loveland, 2003). Prior to the enactment of the HRA, the courts employed broad, unorthodox interpretative methods in order to protect human rights, as in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198. So section 3 may be construed as requiring all domestic courts in all cases to use imaginative and expansive interpretative methods, for there is no reason why the courts should stop employing unorthodox interpretative methods to safeguard human rights (Loveland, 2003). Section 3 can be a radical tool, as demonstrated in the cases of R v Offen and others [2001] 2 All ER 154 and R v A [2001] 3 All ER 1. The interpretive duty and power conferred on the judiciary run counter to Dicey's (1959, p.39) assertion that "all that a court of law may do with an Act of Parliament is apply it" (Lord Bingham, 2002). Campbell (2001) saw the interpretation requirement as encouraging the courts to view legislation on the basis that Parliament intends to legislate in a manner which is compatible with the ECHR. There was considerable debate over quite what the government intended section 3 to do, and what the courts would make of it. Marshall (1998) suggested that section 3 was "a deeply mysterious provision" (p.169). Loveland (2003) concluded that the real question raised by section 3 was not whether it required courts to make a radical break from orthodox interpretative principles, but to what extent it required them to do so. ...read more.


The more expansive the courts' interpretive power, the less likely it would be that a particular statutory provision could not be reconciled with a Convention right (Loveland, 2003). What the courts have yet to do is to develop clear principles to demarcate between section 3 compatibility and section 4 incompatibility (Klug & Starmer, 2001) It is not entirely clear why section 3 was used in Offen to redefine words, but not in R v Mental Health Review Tribunal to re-reverse the burden of proof, particularly if, as Lord Steyn suggested, an express or implied contradiction is needed before the courts decide that it is not possible to interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights (Klug, 1999). The effect of the declaration mechanism is political rather than legal, in that Parliament is invited to revisit it statute book, and if so wished, to amend or repeal legislation in light of a declaration having been granted (Tomkins, 2003). Parliament continues to have supreme legislative authority because it may legislate in contravention of Convention rights, if it wishes so. In conclusion, although there is evidence that the Act "further erodes the already thread-bare doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty" (Greer, 1999, p.20), the HRA has left Parliament's legislative supremacy mostly intact in comparison with the European Communities Act 1972, which had a far more damaging effect. Ewing (1999) also supports the view that Parliamentary sovereignty has been preserved by the HRA: "the inevitable incorporation of the Convention has been secured in a manner which subordinates Convention rights to constitutional principle and democratic tradition" (p.91). The Human Rights Act appears to have been successfully implemented and has engendered a stronger human rights culture in the courts (Elliot & Quinn, 2005). It has achieved its desired balance by retaining Parliament's legal right to enact legislation which is incompatible with Convention rights. Of course, the HRA may be repealed, but the Act may come to acquire a 'moral entrenchment' so that repeal would become politically inconceivable, while still legally possible (Phillipson, 2003). ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Free essay

    How effective are domestic and international legal measures in dealing with human trafficking?

    These issues demonstrate the problematic aspects of human trafficking within Australia, along with the areas to which need to be addressed in order to effectively deal with this crime. However the Australian Government has more recently increased its efforts to provide protection and care to victims of trafficking by ensuring

  2. Customer Protection Legislation.

    the information needed by sellers who want to know their legal responsibilities towards their customers. It would be no excuse for a seller to claim that he or she did not know what the law requires. As far as customers are concerned, the legislation also includes information about the steps

  1. 'The Human Rights Act 1998 has a significant impact on

    upon the legality of the exercise of public powers 'if proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review it is a claim which seeks to review the unlawfulness of the enactment or a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.'11 Clayton and Tomlinson argue that since section 7(3)

  2. Av Dicey said that parliament can make or unmake any law on any subject ...

    R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame [1991] was probably the most serious attack on parliamentary sovereignty. A Spanish fisherman claimed that the Merchant Shipping Act 1998 affected UK fisheries policy and was contrary to EC law.

  1. The media face few legal controls over their right to intrude into the private ...

    and stated Lord Denning's Speech in Re X (a minor) " we have as yet no general remedy for the breach of someone's privacy, the reason given being that on balance it is not in the public interest that there would be..."

  2. Statutory interpretation

    The mischief rule was set out in (Heydon's case, 1584). A case demonstrating the use of the mischief rule is (Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, 1981). In the Abortion Act 1967 it stated that a pregnancy should be 'terminated by a registered medical practitioner'.

  1. Parliamentary Sovereignty

    By doing this, the UK now has to take on any law that is made by the European committee like the Human rights Act 1998.

  2. Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliamentary sovereignty is no ...

    On the other hand Craig, Held by Lord Jennings, Heuston and Marshall, maintains that it is the courts that apply the acts of the parliament give legitimacy to parliamentary sovereignty. Then K.Armstrong added two more approaches from different scholars: ?Pluralist? approach, where European Union considers being an absolute authority in

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work