How Does Separation Of Powers Dominate Parliament

One of the three main theories that work as basis of the organisation of the United Kingdom is the Doctrine of separation of powers, such as Parliament sovereignty and the rule of law. This essay is going to critically discuss whether the United Kingdom needs and have the clear separation of powers.

Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are both concepts that are key to shaping the British constitution, however there is ambiguity as to which concept is the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangement in the recent years.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

A constitution is a set of rules that defines the manner a country is run. The British constitution is said to be an unwritten constitution, more accurately it is uncodified as much more of the British constitution is written down, however, they are not all written down in a single document like a codified constitution would require as how the US is, however draws from several different sources such as; statutes laws, common law, conventions, EU laws, authoritative documents etc. Statute law, is a written law passed down by parliament for example the human rights act of 1998 which brought the European convention on human rights into British law, conventions is another

Parliament is designed to hold the executive accountable; therefore it goes about this by various means of government scrutiny, such as Prime Minister’s Question Time. In addition, Parliament is expected to perform a legislative function, creating the process of a bill becoming a law after undergoing many stages between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Finally, Parliament is also required to be representative of the nation, with constituencies creating a strong local link between the electorate and their MP.

A constitution is a set of rules that create a framework in which those who govern must work within. It’s designed to ensure that both the govern and the governed abide by the law. Today, most democratic countries such as America, Canada and Australia have a written constitution which is a single codified document that explains the powers of State and its institutions; entrenching the fundamental rights and values of its country’s citizens. It’s seen to act as a symbolic force on society and ensures that the rules are made clear and easily accessible for all. The UK, along with New Zealand and Israel, has an unwritten (or uncodified) constitution which is made up of various sources such

Do you agree that the UK constitution is uncodified and should remain so? Uncodified constitutions are not written down in a single document. “The United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the world which has not written down its constitution in a single document.” The UK constitution can be sourced by looking at the Acts of Parliament, prerogative powers, constitutional conventions, case law and EU law. Many would argue that the UK constitution should become codified.

The supremacy of European Union is not the only development that has undermined the UK supremacy of parliamentary sovereignty. There are recent developments of Human Right Law and the devolution of Scottish and Wales Assembly which has greatly weaken the traditional notion of parliament being supreme in UK. Seemingly, the supremacy of European Union is the pillar of all members of the union

A constitution is a set of rules which may be written or unwritten, establishes the distribution of power in a political system, the limits of government jurisdiction, the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. An uncodified constitution is unwritten, or at least not written all in one document. The constitution in the UK is found in a variety of sources which are mainly statute and common law, conventions and traditions, European law etc. There are arguments for the UK to both retain an uncodified constitution and to change this to a codified constitution like the USA. Some of the arguments for retaining the uncodified system are that; codification produces

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

A majority of judges even said obiter that Parliament could not extend its lifetime beyond five years, even if the 1911 Act was to be expressly repealed and the extension bill then passed. That leads to the question if there are basic constitutional rules that parliament simply cannot change. Lord Steyn and Lord Woolf held that the courts might have to revisit the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, if Parliament sought ‘to abolish judicial review of flagrant abuse of power by government or even the role of the ordinary courts in standing between the executive and citizens’. In such an event, the court might have to ‘qualify’ the supremacy of Parliament, ‘a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism’.

Parliamentary sovereignty or parliamentary supremacy is a notion in constitutional law. Dicey depicted parliamentary sovereignty as ‘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.’ Three aspects are present in this definition of parliamentary sovereignty; the first is that Parliament can make or unmake any laws. The second principle is that Parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors nor does it have the legal right to bind its successors. An example of this is the case of Ellen Streets Estates Ltd. v Minister for Health [1934] in which the courts held

For the sake of clarification, the term ‘parliamentary supremacy ' should be defined and elaborated upon before discussing how the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty could be said to be out of place in the modern United Kingdom.