Constitutional twin pillars
Does parliamentary sovereignty trump the rule of law?
in Governing Britain
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

The chapter examines the two concepts seen as the twin pillars of the constitution – parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. It defines parliamentary sovereignty, drawing on the classic work of A. V. Dicey, and draws out the problems associated with defining the rule of law and the implications of a clash between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Though twin pillars of the constitution, they are not necessarily equal pillars. It examines recent challenges by some judges to the supremacy of parliamentary sovereignty, developed in recent court cases, and the implications of the claim that the doctrine is the product of common law and therefore can be overridden by the courts.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 48 48 44
Full Text Views 1 1 1
PDF Downloads 2 2 2