1.
Does the Human Rights Act 1998 succeed in reconciling parliamentary sovereignty
within the protection of individual human rights?
The legislative framework for safeguarding human rights came about because of the need to
protect people from the overweening power of the state. As one of the first countries to ratify the
European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) , the United Kingdom should embrace the
Human Rights Act 1998 ( HRA 1998 ) as a source of great pride . Since its inception it has
entrenched greater transparency and imminence of human rights protection in the UK. The HRA
1998 provides a charter of rights now enforceable before the domestic courts. Prior to the HRA
1998, the ECHR was regarded as an aid to interpretation by the courts but had no jurisdiction to
directly enforce the rights and freedoms under the Convention. There was no obligation on the
courts to rely on the Convention if a source of authority could be found within domestic law.
Increasingly, the judiciary expressed willingness to protect individual liberties where a statute
was ambiguous or silent to construe the statute strictly and in favor of the liberty of the citizen.
However, there were limits to the extent to which judges were able to protect rights. In the case
of R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Ross minster Ltd , the House of Lords ruled
where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous , the court possessed no jurisdiction to
go against its clear words and was under a duty to uphold the will of the parliament
Parliament to enact laws on any subject matter that they please by ensuring that the Acts are
compatible with the ECHR. However, the Parliament may repeal the HRA 1998 at any time
using their sovereign power to regain their full capabilities if they choose to do so. Therefore, in
sense Sovereign power in the Parliament is constrained to protect individual human rights
through the incorporation of the HRA 1998 but the Parliament still possesses the power to repeal
the Act and regain their full sovereign powers.
Parliamentary sovereignty is an ancient idea important to the functioning of the constitution of
the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been contested. Since the
subjection of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic techniques of
parliamentary rule, there have been the concerns of whether parliament retains a supreme ability
to legislate and whether or not it should. Thus the traditional view of Parliamentary sovereignty
is being challenged.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a description of to what extent the Parliament of the United
Kingdom that has total and limitless power. It is framed in terms of the level of jurisdiction that
parliament wields, and if there are certain forms of law that it cannot pass. In other nations, a
written constitution generally binds the parliament to operate in a certain way, but there is no
codified constitution in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, parliament is central to the
institutions of state.
The words "parliamentary sovereignty" and "parliamentary supremacy" are often used
interchangeably. The term "sovereignty" indicates a parallel to the topic of national sovereignty.
While writer John Austin and others have attempted to integrate parliamentary and national
sovereignty, this perspective is not widely supported. Whichever word is used, it relates to the
existence or non-existence of constraints on parliament's power in its legislative job. Although
the House of Commons' supremacy within the Houses of Parliament is abundantly documented,
"parliamentary sovereignty" refers to their shared power. Almost all legislation is passed with the
assistance of the House of Lords.
Biblography:
Goldsworthy, J. (2010). Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates (Vol. 1). Cambridge
University Press.
Goldsworthy, J. D. (1999). The sovereignty of parliament: history and philosophy.
Elliott, M. (2004). United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure. Int'l J. Const. L.,
2, 545.