The Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 mean that Parliament can overrule
the Court in the UK constitution. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced to
put duties on Ministers to observe rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Hence, it is no longer the case that Parliament reigns supreme in the UK Constitution. The
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was created in 1950 under the auspices of
the Council of Europe which includes 47 national states. The aim was to base their legal
systems on common fundamental principles and basic rights. The Council of Europe is a
voluntary association of states and is separate from the EU. The ECHR has been ratified by
all 47 members including the United Kingdom, but not incorporated into UK law or statute. It
places obligations on the state rather than individuals, although individuals can bring cases in
Strasbourg on human rights issues relating to the ECHR. The UK accepted that it would be
bound by judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg , a court whose
judgments are binding on all but one member state ( Ireland ) – and have been accepted as
authoritative interpretations of the HRA in subsequent cases – but only so far as they are
consistent with domestic law. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is in the ECHR and it provides
for rights and protections for individuals who are members of any part of the UK .
In the United Kingdom , the notion of parliamentary supremacy derives from the
seventeenth century and from the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that: "The pretended
power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority without consent of
parliament is illegal." In fact, parliamentary sovereignty continues to involve two distinct
dimensions: (1) Parliament's power to legislate; and (2) Parliament's ability to make or
unmake any domestic law or arrangement 1 . Historically speaking, both dimensions have been
accepted in Britain. This means that the legislative process remains essentially a unilateral
one: Parliament can legislate as it wishes irrespective of any contrary statutory provisions. In
1 Davis, H. (2021). Human Rights Law Directions. Oxford University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o8UqEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=UK+Human+Rights
+Act+of+1998&ots=JWaPQt11SK&sig=Co-DLQjlKy0PcqeWbbRv_MiRFs0
3
addition, Parliament has the capacity to dissolve (or withdraw from) Parliament, meaning that
its members can resign en masse or by any other means and have their own power to legislate
(or not) at their own discretion thereby.
In light of these assumptions, there is no room for judicial review in the United
Kingdom . The notions of supremacy and responsibility still exist though in a different
manner and without giving judges a role to play. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) does
not have a direct effect. It does not have the same status as a primary or general piece of
legislation, but it is a codification of other sources of law that the courts must take into
account when interpreting primary or general pieces of legislation 2 . Therefore, if any statute
appears to conflict with any convention rights, the courts will only give effect to the
convention right and will disapply the conflicting statute in question.
The Human Rights Act 1998 does not have direct effect because it places obligations
on the state rather than individuals, although individuals can bring cases in Strasbourg on
human rights issues related to the ECHR. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
are binding on all but one member-state ( Ireland ), and have been accepted as authoritative
interpretations of the HRA in subsequent cases 3 . The Human Rights Act covers a series of
scenarios that uphold human life and its sanctity. This is elevated as a meaningful and
elevated concept within the adverse nature of statutory laws that protect humans and their
rights and freedoms. While the HRA has developed and been tuned over time, it has been
2 Keller, H., & Sweet, A. S. (Eds.). (2008). A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on
national legal systems. OUP Oxford.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DTGPDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP
6&dq=ECHR&ots=s375LELZLt&sig=k1aaW7qV1PwomBXmi5Fw963fIl8
3 Husa, J. (2019). Constitutional mentality. In Nordic law in European context (pp. 41-60). Springer, Cham.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03006-3_3
4
able to cover and engage more and newer concepts which are wholesome and which engage
the collective nature of humanity.
Since its introduction in 1998, the HRA has changed drastically both domestically and
internationally. In defining parliament to being supreme to the constitution, the HRA has put
the courts in a rather awkward position. It comes down to whether the courts should interpret
domestic laws to give effect to the HRA or whether it should not. In this respect, one must
remember that the UK is still a member of the EU, which is bound by all court judgments of
the ECHR and certainly has its limitations for certain members 4 . The European Court of
Human Rights attempts to resolve conflicts between its judgments and member's domestic
law by subjecting them to an "interpretation convention", which provides that if national law
is incompatible with particular rights under international law, domestic courts must give it
effect in a way consistent with international obligations.
In conclusion , the HRA is a way of codifying UK law in light of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR's acts as the main source of UK
legislation, but the HRA has been introduced to put further limitations on these rights by
arguing that this will avoid conflicts with UK primary and general law. According to Jenkins,
control over human rights rather than encourage it might undermine national security. This
analysis has proven that the UK has a unique system of government and no court can overrule
Parliament because it is their sovereign body but only due to its own constitution they have
limited powers legally and practically.
4 Ahmed, F., & Perry, A. (2017). Constitutional statutes. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37(2), 461-481.
https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqw030/32374483/gqw030.pdf
5
References
Ahmed, F., & Perry, A. (2017). Constitutional statutes. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,
37(2), 461-481. https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-
pdf/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqw030/32374483/gqw030.pdf
Davis, H. (2021). Human Rights Law Directions. Oxford University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o8UqEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=U
K+Human+Rights+Act+of+1998&ots=JWaPQt11SK&sig=Co-
wDLQjlKy0PcqeWbbRv_MiRFs0
Husa, J. (2019). Constitutional mentality. In Nordic law in European context (pp. 41-60).
Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03006-3_3
Keller, H., & Sweet, A. S. (Eds.). (2008). A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on
national legal systems. OUP Oxford.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DTGPDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP
6&dq=ECHR&ots=s375LELZLt&sig=k1aaW7qV1PwomBXmi5Fw963fIl8