Download file to see previous pages...
Conversely, the 1688 settlement between the incoming king and Parliament enshrined the independence of the judiciary under the Bill of Rights, however required them to implement the will of the Sovereign Parliament. However, the supremacy of Parliament itself has been attacked on limits of judicial review4.
The 1688 settlement introduced checks and balances in restraint of autocratic power. Theoretically, the Crown, House of Commons and the House of Lords could not pass any legislation to support a course of action unless they were accepted by the other bodies involved. However, the gradual erosion of the power of the House of Lords means that there is effectively no check on the House of Commons5. For example, the executive clearly carries out legislative functions and a prime example is the Law Commission. Additionally, the judiciary obtain their power from the Crown and there is a distinct overlap of functions between the powers, which should be separated for the effective application of the separation of powers and the efficacy of Parliament as check on the executive6. This is further compounded by the fact that the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers are Parliament members and part of the legislature and the Prime Minister is head of the executive.
This obfuscation of the theoretical separation of powers has ramifications for the procedure of passing Acts of Parliament. Parliament is essentially the legislative section of the British political system. As such, through the executive Prime Minister and the Cabinet, Parliament sanctions executive sovereignty in a party governmental system. Theoretically Parliament is a policy influencing body, relying on the executive to formulate policy and reacts to it and therefore the party machine reinforces power of the executive to initiate policy. Parliament is not therefore involved in the policy making process and has minor powers of initiation. Whilst government controls Parliament the passing of an
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Student Name: Instructor name: Unit Name Date Introduction The British case-law and wider international academic debate was the last measure that was enacted under the government of labour which lost office in May 2010, in U.K. It is also a result of 14 years campaign by human rights and equality specialists.
Lastly, the third pillar guarantees the citizens the right to access tribunals and courts of law to deal with violations of the environmental law as well as, a violation of rights under the first two pillars. Considering that the United Kingdom (UK) lacks legal infrastructure, it still borrows from the international conventions in a bid to protect its interests.
Interpretation, in this case, for compliance may be in conflict with the intent of the legislation. This is considered as a last resort measure with an array of superior courts having the ability to issue such a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration does not bind the parties nor can it lead to the invalidation of legislation (Clements, 2008: p21).
Today, the political policies and the business interests of nations are intricately intertwined with each other, for never before the individual nations were so interdependent and connected. Thus, interactions and collaborations of the specific nations in today's complex world need to be governed by some rules.
Just like a regular Court case, the decisions are legally binding. The Court may also award damages.
While in conventional international relations discourse, states are the only political bodies awarded with acting powers in international law, the European Convention on Human Rights was the first to give to the individual the privilege of participating in international relations.
In the call for reforms, the primacy of the Commons must be maintained2 because its pre-eminence is anchored on a political reality that it is the majority party that organizes Government, subject to its continuing confidence to implement the programme set out in its manifesto.
Since the Vienna Convention cannot be invoked in this case, it may be necessary to seek the legal assistance of the International Court of Justice at the Hague (A specialised organ of the UNO to deal with disputes among countries) to work out a peaceful settlement that could be accepted by all the three parties in the dispute, Countries A,B and C.
The court ruled that there was a need for Cabinet to preserve secrecy in order to maintain confidence.
The Standards and Privileges Committee investigated claims that Peter Mandelson – the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry – had
3 Pages(750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Public Law Essay for FREE!