Parliamentary Sovereignty

An evaluation will be carried out in order to determine whether the enforcement of human rights standards in the United Kingdom (UK) has preserved or undermined the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. The human rights provisions along with their functions will be explored in order to reach a coherent conclusion.

The UK has a constitutional arrangement described as wholly uncodified. In place of a single document are statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, treaties and constitutional principles. Constitutional principles consist of prerogative power, rule of law, separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty can be regarded as the defining principle of the constitutional arrangement, it refers to parliament

The ECHR creates a minimum standard of rights guaranteed for all citizens. The ECHR as a treaty is not directly effective in the UK and requires ratification by the enactment of a domestic provision. Although the UK became party to the ECHR in 1953 there was initial reluctance to incorporate it into law. Firstly, it was felt that the common law provisions already in place were sufficient in acknowledging and actively protecting human rights. For instance, in Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249 Lord Cross held that “a law of this sort constitutes so grave an infringement of human rights that the courts … ought to refuse to recognise it as a law at all”(p.278). Secondly, there was no intention to give convention rights constitutional status as parliament did not want to bind their successors or place supra legislative authority into the hands of the judiciary, as this would undermine sovereignty (The Open University ‘OU’ 2018a 3.2). Consequently, domestic legislation demanded careful consideration to ensure that a balance was struck between protecting human rights whilst maintaining