Introduction
This essay examines whether Parliament should be regarded as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom, a question central to understanding the constitutional framework and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The UK’s unwritten constitution places significant emphasis on Parliament’s authority, yet this position is increasingly challenged by devolution, judicial review, and international obligations such as those arising from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This discussion will explore the arguments supporting parliamentary supremacy, counterarguments highlighting its limitations, and the evolving nature of law-making authority in the modern UK context. By critically evaluating these perspectives, the essay aims to assess whether Parliament’s traditional role remains tenable or requires reevaluation in light of contemporary developments.
The Case for Parliamentary Supremacy
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as famously articulated by A.V. Dicey, asserts that Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no body or court can question its legislative authority (Dicey, 1885). This principle underpins the UK’s constitutional order, ensuring that elected representatives hold ultimate power over law-making, thereby reflecting democratic accountability. For instance, Parliament’s ability to enact transformative legislation, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, demonstrates its capacity to shape legal and social norms without constraint from other institutions. Furthermore, the absence of a codified constitution means that Parliament remains the primary source of legal authority, distinguishing the UK from systems with entrenched constitutional limits (Bradley and Ewing, 2011). Thus, maintaining Parliament as the supreme law-making body arguably preserves the democratic principle that elected officials, rather than unelected judges or external bodies, should determine the law.
Challenges to Parliamentary Sovereignty
Despite its historical dominance, parliamentary sovereignty faces significant challenges that question its supremacy. Devolution, for example, has transferred legislative powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, creating a fragmented law-making landscape. The Scotland Act 1998 grants the Scottish Parliament authority over devolved matters, occasionally leading to tensions with Westminster, as seen in debates over Brexit legislation (Hazell, 2008). Additionally, the influence of international law, particularly through the ECHR and previously EU law, imposes constraints on parliamentary action. The case of *Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)* (2005) highlighted how the European Court of Human Rights can challenge UK legislation, such as on prisoner voting rights, raising questions about Parliament’s unfettered authority. Moreover, judicial review has grown in significance, with courts increasingly scrutinising government actions, as evidenced in *R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union* (2017), which required parliamentary approval for triggering Brexit. These developments suggest that Parliament’s law-making supremacy is no longer absolute.
The Role of Judicial and International Oversight
A critical counterargument to parliamentary supremacy lies in the judiciary’s evolving role and the necessity of international oversight. While Parliament retains the theoretical ability to repeal legislation like the Human Rights Act, political realities often deter such actions due to public and international backlash. Indeed, the judiciary’s interpretive powers under the HRA allow courts to issue declarations of incompatibility, pressuring Parliament to amend legislation (Loveland, 2018). This dynamic indicates a de facto limitation on parliamentary power, even if de jure sovereignty remains intact. Additionally, globalisation necessitates compliance with international norms, meaning that Parliament’s law-making must often align with treaties and obligations, further diluting its supreme status. Arguably, this balance of power prevents legislative overreach and protects fundamental rights, but it raises the question of whether Parliament can truly be considered supreme.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional framework, its supremacy as the law-making body is increasingly contested by devolution, judicial review, and international obligations. The democratic legitimacy of parliamentary authority is compelling, ensuring that elected representatives shape the law. However, practical limitations demonstrate that this power is not absolute, as other institutions and external frameworks exert significant influence. The implications of this shift suggest a need for a nuanced understanding of sovereignty in the modern UK, where power is shared rather than concentrated. Ultimately, while Parliament retains a central role, its status as the supreme law-making body is arguably more theoretical than practical in today’s complex legal landscape.
References
- Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D. (2011) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 15th edn. London: Longman.
- Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan.
- Hazell, R. (2008) Constitutional Futures Revisited: Britain’s Constitution to 2020. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Loveland, I. (2018) Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
