My thesis deals with the legal concept of sovereign Parliament, the very keystone of British constitution according to A. V. Dicey. This model has been challenged both normatively and descriptively. Concerning the normative point of view, concept of unlimited sovereignty is incoherent. Descriptively, courts don't simply take the parliamentary supremacy for granted, even if they say so. Relationship between the Parliament and courts is certainly more complex than Dicey suggested. Goals of this thesis are rather tentative. Since the popularity of this topic among British constitutional lawyers, comprehensive analysis is implausible due to the limited space. This paper aims to gather fundamental theories and disputes regarding the parliamentary sovereignty and its relationship with courts. In other words, it explores connection between the Parliament and courts in contemporary British constitution. First chapter analyses the constitutional conventions, which forms the basics of several other fundamental concepts in UK constitution. It suggests that there are no clear boundaries between law and conventions. Second chapter focuses on the general concept of sovereignty and Diceyan classic theory of Parliamentary sovereignty. There is also a brief explanation of sovereignty's connection to Scot's law....
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:327865 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Píša, Radek |
| Contributors | Kysela, Jan, Pithart, Petr |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | Czech |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.012 seconds