Search

Sovereignty is the central tenet of modern British constitutional thought but its meaning remains misunderstood. Lawyers treat it as a precise legal concept – the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – but commonly fail to acknowledge that that doctrine is erected on a skewed sense of what sovereignty entails. In particular, they do not see that the doctrine rests on a particular political conviction, that the British state depends on a central authority equipped with an unlimited power. These two facets of sovereignty are now so deeply intertwined in legal consciousness that they cannot easily be unravelled and this becomes the main barrier to thinking constructively about Britain's constitutional arrangements. This article substantiates these claims by explaining how the doctrine came into being, demonstrating how it is tied to a deeper political conviction, showing that its political underpinnings have been considerably weakened over the last century, and indicating how its re‐working is the precondition of constitutional renewal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1885 A.V. Dicey identified the rule of law as a key principle of British constitutional law. Presenting it both as a product of English common law method and an expression of classical liberalism, Dicey's concept lingered on into the twentieth century but mainly as a contentious ideological doctrine or simply as a vague rhetorical slogan. During the last fifty years, however, the concept has been revived, recrafted, relocated and reified. The rule of law has become a universal trope, albeit with a range of contestable meanings. This article traces this development, showing how it has been converted into a phrase of considerable political potency not only domestically but also in the international arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the works of lawyer William Ivor Jennings in the development of public law. The article presents a revised version of papers delivered at a seminar in June 2003 to mark Jennings' centenary. The objective was not celebratory; rather, it was intended to be an occasion for assessing the significance of Jennings' contribution to the development of public law scholarship in the twentieth century and, through the analysis of his work, to reflect on developments in the discipline. Although the academic discipline of public law in Great Britain is relatively young, it is not too early to learn from revisiting the work of those who have played a major role in molding it into a distinctive shape.