Sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act and their impact on the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements
View/ Open
Publisher
DOI
10.26494/QMLJ72464
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
In the late 1990s, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was incorporated into
British law. Section 3 of the HRA grants British judges to go as far as they can when
interpreting domestic legislation in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. This
article reviews relevant case law to assert that despite this extension of judicial power, British
judges interpret domestic legislation in line with its fundamental purpose when reviewing
whether it is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. This article also
considers the impact of section 4 of the HRA on the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Section
4 allows judges to issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ upon finding domestic legislation to
be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Although section 4 has
empowered senior British judges to issue declarations of incompatibility, Parliament must still
decide whether those declarations can invalidate domestic law. This reality has sparked a
debate about bi-polar sovereignty between the Parliament and the judiciary. Despite this clear
tension between the Parliament and the judiciary, this article contends that parliamentary
sovereignty has not been eradicated due to sections 3 and 4 of the HRA.
Authors
Riaz, AyeshaCollections
- Queen Mary Law Journal [38]
- Queen Mary Law Journal [38]
Licence information
Copyright statements
The following license files are associated with this item: