header-logo header-logo

An unsettled constitution?

31 January 2025 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8102 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
205942
Does the Human Rights Act 1998 undermine parliamentary sovereignty? A recent Policy Exchange paper argues that it does. Nicholas Dobson explores the issues
  • This article looks at the Human Rights Act 1998 in the light of a Policy Exchange paper that examines the Act’s impact on 25 cases.
  • Many jurists have argued that the Act unsettles the UK constitution and distorts its government.

Albert Venn Dicey, jurist and constitutional theorist, wrote in his 1885 Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that: ‘The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament [ie, the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons] has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, 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.’

According to Dicey, Parliamentary sovereignty may be described as: ‘Any Act of Parliament, of any part

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll