英国宪法中的议会主权与民众主权

IF 1.5 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1017/S0008197322000022

J. Goldsworthy

{"title":"英国宪法中的议会主权与民众主权","authors":"J. Goldsworthy","doi":"10.1017/S0008197322000022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rivka Weill claims that in the nineteenth century the foundation of the UK constitution changed from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty, originally as a matter of constitutional convention but today as a matter of law. I argue, to the contrary, that parliamentary sovereignty as a legal principle and popular sovereignty as a political principle are perfectly compatible. Constitutional conventions are essentially political not legal requirements. Therefore, a constitutional convention requiring popular approval of constitutional change, if it ever existed, would not have violated parliamentary sovereignty. But if it did exist, it was displaced by the Parliament Act 1911 and has not been revived since. Moreover, there is no evidence that courts today have legal authority to enforce any requirement, conventional or legal, requiring such approval.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"81 1","pages":"273 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UK CONSTITUTION\",\"authors\":\"J. Goldsworthy\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0008197322000022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Rivka Weill claims that in the nineteenth century the foundation of the UK constitution changed from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty, originally as a matter of constitutional convention but today as a matter of law. I argue, to the contrary, that parliamentary sovereignty as a legal principle and popular sovereignty as a political principle are perfectly compatible. Constitutional conventions are essentially political not legal requirements. Therefore, a constitutional convention requiring popular approval of constitutional change, if it ever existed, would not have violated parliamentary sovereignty. But if it did exist, it was displaced by the Parliament Act 1911 and has not been revived since. Moreover, there is no evidence that courts today have legal authority to enforce any requirement, conventional or legal, requiring such approval.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"273 - 293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000022\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197322000022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:里夫卡·威尔认为，在19世纪，英国宪法的基础从议会主权转变为人民主权，最初作为制宪会议的问题，但今天作为法律的问题。相反，我认为议会主权作为一项法律原则和人民主权作为一项政治原则是完全相容的。宪法公约本质上是政治要求，而不是法律要求。因此，制宪会议要求民众同意修宪，如果它曾经存在过，就不会侵犯议会主权。但是，即使它确实存在，它也被1911年的议会法案所取代，从那以后就再也没有恢复过。此外，没有证据表明，今天的法院有法律权力强制执行任何要求，无论是传统的还是法律上的，都需要这样的批准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UK CONSTITUTION

Abstract Rivka Weill claims that in the nineteenth century the foundation of the UK constitution changed from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty, originally as a matter of constitutional convention but today as a matter of law. I argue, to the contrary, that parliamentary sovereignty as a legal principle and popular sovereignty as a political principle are perfectly compatible. Constitutional conventions are essentially political not legal requirements. Therefore, a constitutional convention requiring popular approval of constitutional change, if it ever existed, would not have violated parliamentary sovereignty. But if it did exist, it was displaced by the Parliament Act 1911 and has not been revived since. Moreover, there is no evidence that courts today have legal authority to enforce any requirement, conventional or legal, requiring such approval.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cambridge Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.