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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
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.
期刊最新文献
RECYCLED MALICE RELATIONAL TRADE NETWORKS SECTION 36 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 THE UK INTERNAL MARKET: A GLOBAL OUTLIER? WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1