Limitation, Empowerment and the Value of Legal Certainty in the Treaty Incorporation References Case

NicholasRex Kilford
{"title":"Limitation, Empowerment and the Value of Legal Certainty in the Treaty Incorporation References Case","authors":"NicholasRex Kilford","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.2016295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. Since the ‘process’ of contemporary devolution first began in 1998 three issues have often given lawyers, academics and critics food for thought. The first issue is external to the settlement: the relationship between devolution and parliamentary sovereignty. The ability of either to survive the existence of the other has been a central question for the discourse, with both sovereignty and devolution potentially posing a deathknell for the other. The second issue is internal to the settlement – the tension between, on the one hand, the immensely technical nature of the devolution statutes themselves and, on the other, their profound constitutional significance. The former has sometimes served to obscure the latter from view. It would be curious, however, given that ‘[t]he carefully chosen language in which these provisions are expressed is not as important as the general message that the words convey’, for the technicalities of the Scotland Act 1998 to stand in the way of its constitutional ‘message’. The third issue is how best to make sense of that message, and to situate it within the constitution more generally. However, it is probably fair to say that the constitutional significance of the settlement itself is, unlike in its earlier years, no longer uncertain. Few would contend now that the devolved legislatures deserve comparisons with an English parish council. Curial attestations of the constitutional value of the devolved legislatures abound, a value which is predicated by their democratic credentials and reinforced in Scotland and Wales by legislative declarations of","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.2016295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. Since the ‘process’ of contemporary devolution first began in 1998 three issues have often given lawyers, academics and critics food for thought. The first issue is external to the settlement: the relationship between devolution and parliamentary sovereignty. The ability of either to survive the existence of the other has been a central question for the discourse, with both sovereignty and devolution potentially posing a deathknell for the other. The second issue is internal to the settlement – the tension between, on the one hand, the immensely technical nature of the devolution statutes themselves and, on the other, their profound constitutional significance. The former has sometimes served to obscure the latter from view. It would be curious, however, given that ‘[t]he carefully chosen language in which these provisions are expressed is not as important as the general message that the words convey’, for the technicalities of the Scotland Act 1998 to stand in the way of its constitutional ‘message’. The third issue is how best to make sense of that message, and to situate it within the constitution more generally. However, it is probably fair to say that the constitutional significance of the settlement itself is, unlike in its earlier years, no longer uncertain. Few would contend now that the devolved legislatures deserve comparisons with an English parish council. Curial attestations of the constitutional value of the devolved legislatures abound, a value which is predicated by their democratic credentials and reinforced in Scotland and Wales by legislative declarations of
1. 自1998年当代权力下放“进程”开始以来,有三个问题经常让律师、学者和评论家深思。第一个问题是解决方案的外部问题:权力下放与议会主权之间的关系。任何一方在另一方存在的情况下生存的能力一直是讨论的中心问题,主权和权力下放都可能为另一方敲响丧钟。第二个问题是解决方案的内部问题——一方面是权力下放法规本身的巨大技术性质,另一方面是它们深刻的宪法意义之间的紧张关系。前者有时起到掩盖后者的作用。然而,考虑到“这些条款所使用的精心选择的语言并不像这些文字所传达的一般信息那么重要”,1998年《苏格兰法案》的技术细节阻碍了其宪法“信息”,这就很奇怪了。第三个问题是如何最好地理解这一信息,并更普遍地将其置于宪法之中。然而,公平地说,与早些年不同,和解本身的宪法意义不再是不确定的。现在很少有人会争辩说,权力下放的立法机构值得与英格兰教区议会相提并论。对权力下放的立法机构的宪法价值的书面证明比比皆是,这种价值是由它们的民主资历所确定的,并在苏格兰和威尔士通过立法声明得到加强
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信