Introduction
The United Kingdom’s unwritten constitution is underpinned by several fundamental principles, two of which—parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law—stand as cornerstones of constitutional theory and practice. Parliamentary sovereignty, often described as the ability of Parliament to make or unmake any law without legal limitation, contrasts with the rule of law, which emphasizes that all individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable under the law. The question of whether these two principles hold equal importance within the UK constitution is a matter of significant academic debate. This essay will critically explore the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, assessing the extent to which they can be deemed equally important. By examining primary authorities, including case law and statutes, alongside academic commentary, this essay argues that while both principles are foundational, parliamentary sovereignty often takes precedence in practice, though the rule of law plays an essential complementary role in maintaining constitutional balance.
The Concept and Importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is a bedrock principle of the UK constitution, famously articulated by A.V. Dicey as the notion that Parliament can enact or repeal any law, and no body or court can override its legislation (Dicey, 1885). This principle ensures that the democratically elected Parliament remains the supreme legal authority, embodying the will of the people through legislative power. The landmark case of Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 WLR 242 reaffirmed this by upholding that even international obligations could not supersede an Act of Parliament, illustrating the absolute nature of parliamentary authority in the domestic sphere.
In practical terms, parliamentary sovereignty allows for adaptability within the UK’s unwritten constitution. For instance, major constitutional changes, such as the devolution of powers through the Scotland Act 1998, demonstrate Parliament’s capacity to alter fundamental structures without external legal constraint. However, this supremacy can arguably lead to tensions with other constitutional principles, particularly when legislation appears to contravene fundamental rights or legal norms. Academic commentary, such as that from Bogdanor (2009), suggests that while parliamentary sovereignty remains theoretically absolute, its exercise is increasingly influenced by political and moral constraints, including public opinion and international obligations like those under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Rule of Law as a Foundational Principle
The rule of law, another pillar of the UK constitution, ensures that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the law, and that laws are applied consistently and fairly. Dicey (1885) identified key elements of the rule of law, including the absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the protection of individual rights through judicial decisions. This principle is evident in cases such as Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98, where the court held that state power must be grounded in legal authority, protecting citizens from unlawful intrusion.
The rule of law serves as a crucial check on the potential excesses of parliamentary sovereignty. For instance, judicial review mechanismsallow courts to scrutinize the legality of government actions, ensuring they comply with legal standards. The case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 highlighted the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law by ruling that parliamentary approval was required before triggering Brexit, thereby reinforcing the importance of legal process over executive discretion. Academics like Allan (2013) argue that the rule of law is not merely a procedural safeguard but a substantive principle that protects fundamental rights, even in the face of parliamentary decisions.
Tensions Between Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law
While both principles are central to the UK constitution, tensions arise when parliamentary sovereignty appears to undermine the rule of law. A clear example is the potential for Parliament to enact legislation that contravenes fundamental rights or legal principles, as parliamentary sovereignty dictates that courts cannot invalidate such laws. The passage of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed for indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial, was criticized for breaching principles of fairness and equality under the law. This led to the judicial ruling in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, where the House of Lords declared such provisions incompatible with the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998, though it could not strike down the legislation due to parliamentary sovereignty.
This tension suggests that while the rule of law provides a moral and procedural framework, it lacks the legal authority to override parliamentary decisions. Indeed, Jeffrey Jowell (2007) argues that parliamentary sovereignty often prevails in practice, as Parliament can theoretically repeal any legal safeguard, including the Human Rights Act itself. However, the political reality often mitigates this power, as public and international pressure can deter Parliament from enacting laws that grossly violate the rule of law.
Are the Two Principles Equally Important?
Considering the above analysis, the assertion that parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are equally important is only partially convincing. On one hand, parliamentary sovereignty holds a dominant position in the UK constitution due to its legal supremacy, ensuring that democratic will, as expressed through Parliament, is paramount. On the other hand, the rule of law provides an essential counterbalance, safeguarding against arbitrary power and ensuring accountability through judicial oversight. Without the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty could lead to unchecked authority, as highlighted by Lord Bingham (2010), who emphasized that the rule of law is vital for protecting democratic values.
Nevertheless, in legal terms, parliamentary sovereignty arguably retains primacy, as Parliament can ultimately override judicial decisions or legal norms through legislation. For example, while the judiciary can issue declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, it is ultimately Parliament’s prerogative to amend or ignore such findings. This dynamic suggests a hierarchical relationship, where the rule of law operates within the boundaries set by parliamentary sovereignty, rather than as an equal partner.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are fundamental to the UK constitution, they do not hold equal importance in practice. Parliamentary sovereignty emerges as the overriding principle due to its ultimate legal authority, allowing Parliament to shape the constitutional framework without external limitation. However, the rule of law plays a critical complementary role by providing a framework of accountability and fairness, often influencing Parliament’s decisions through political and moral pressures. The interplay between these principles ensures a delicate constitutional balance, but the legal supremacy of Parliament suggests a hierarchy rather than equality. This relationship raises important implications for the future of the UK constitution, particularly as global and domestic pressures, such as human rights obligations, continue to challenge the unfettered nature of parliamentary sovereignty. Further exploration of this dynamic remains essential to understanding the evolving nature of UK constitutional law.
References
- Allan, T.R.S. (2013) The Sovereignty of Law: Freedom, Constitution, and Common Law. Oxford University Press.
- Bingham, T. (2010) The Rule of Law. Penguin Books.
- Bogdanor, V. (2009) The New British Constitution. Hart Publishing.
- Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Macmillan.
- Jowell, J. (2007) The Rule of Law and its Underlying Values. In: Jowell, J. and Oliver, D. (eds.) The Changing Constitution. Oxford University Press.
[Word count: 1052, including references]
