Devolution, National Pluralism and the Role of the UK Supreme Court.

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-05-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqaf014
Josep M Tirapu-Sanuy
{"title":"Devolution, National Pluralism and the Role of the UK Supreme Court.","authors":"Josep M Tirapu-Sanuy","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article concerns the role of the UK Supreme Court in the devolution settlement. It starts by describing the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in relation to devolution cases, characterised by a style of reasoning strictly tied to the literal meaning of the statutory text, and an expansive understanding of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The article argues that the purpose of devolution is the accommodation of national pluralism: devolution institutionalises the unique plurinational nature of the UK, accommodating the claims to self-government advanced by the UK's minority nations. This has important implications for the Supreme Court: in deciding devolution cases, the Supreme Court can contribute positively or negatively to the achievement of this purpose. I maintain that the Court ought to reason and interpret the devolution statutes in a manner which promotes the accommodation of national pluralism, moving away from the current approach. The argument is illustrated with an analysis of the <i>IndyRef2</i> judgment, in comparison with the Canadian <i>Quebec Secession Reference</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"45 3","pages":"640-668"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12395232/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article concerns the role of the UK Supreme Court in the devolution settlement. It starts by describing the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in relation to devolution cases, characterised by a style of reasoning strictly tied to the literal meaning of the statutory text, and an expansive understanding of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The article argues that the purpose of devolution is the accommodation of national pluralism: devolution institutionalises the unique plurinational nature of the UK, accommodating the claims to self-government advanced by the UK's minority nations. This has important implications for the Supreme Court: in deciding devolution cases, the Supreme Court can contribute positively or negatively to the achievement of this purpose. I maintain that the Court ought to reason and interpret the devolution statutes in a manner which promotes the accommodation of national pluralism, moving away from the current approach. The argument is illustrated with an analysis of the IndyRef2 judgment, in comparison with the Canadian Quebec Secession Reference.

权力下放、国家多元化和英国最高法院的角色。
本文关注英国最高法院在权力下放解决方案中的作用。它首先描述了最高法院在权力下放案件中所采用的方法,其特点是严格按照法定文本的字面含义进行推理,并对议会主权原则有广泛的理解。本文认为,权力下放的目的是适应民族多元化:权力下放制度化了英国独特的多民族性质,适应了英国少数民族提出的自治要求。这对最高法院具有重要意义:在决定权力下放案件时,最高法院可以为实现这一目的作出积极或消极的贡献。我坚持认为,最高法院应该以一种促进容纳民族多元化的方式来推理和解释权力下放法规,而不是目前的做法。通过对IndyRef2判决的分析,并与加拿大魁北克分离案进行比较,可以说明这一论点。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信