THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS

R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary soverei...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cambridge law journal 2015-11, Vol.74 (3), p.385-388
Main Author: Allan, T.R.S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attorneys general
CASE AND COMMENT
Decision making models
Freedom of information
Judicial process
Law and legislation
Parliamentary procedure
Rule of law
Social aspects
Sovereignty
Vetoes
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 388
container_issue 3
container_start_page 385
container_title Cambridge law journal
container_volume 74
creator Allan, T.R.S.
description R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, they understood them differently, resulting in disagreement about their correct reconciliation on the facts of the case. The majority of Justices achieved a real integration of these basic principles in a manner that the dissentients’ superficially more straightforward approach did not.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S000819731500077X
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1728217599</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S000819731500077X</cupid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20221222080515</informt_id><jstor_id>24693831</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24693831</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-73896585f703aba268aa95932f2ec77a042048e54521a908141c9e32c26a39663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1EJZbCD-CAZIlrAx47ju1jtOt2jdIEJdlCuVhumixZsc1ip4f--yZsqZAQJ4_mfeadDyP0DshHICA-VYQQCUow4FMkxLcXaAFxoiIKTL1Ei1mOZv0Veh3CbmaUVAv0vV5rXG4yjYtznKVfz_CXtMxMeqnzOi2vcVVc6VKbi7y-PsNpvsIpvjS5qWpdmjTDV7ou8Izgz5uVWc6plV6ayhR59QaddO5naN8-vadoc67r5TrKiguzTLOoiSEeI8GkSrjknSDM3TiaSOcUV4x2tG2EcCSmJJYtjzkFp6YlY2hUy2hDE8dUkrBT9OHoe_DDr_s2jHY33Pu7qaUFQSUFwZWaKDhSjR9C8G1nD77fO_9ggdj5hPafE04162ON3_ejdds-HEYbWuebH7a_64bf6cFv7e3QzzaMQfIHo4RSoJQSSTjwyer90WoXxsE_96bTFzHJYNLZ03huf-P722371xb_HfAR_8qKuw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1728217599</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Lexis+ Journals</source><creator>Allan, T.R.S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Allan, T.R.S.</creatorcontrib><description>R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, they understood them differently, resulting in disagreement about their correct reconciliation on the facts of the case. The majority of Justices achieved a real integration of these basic principles in a manner that the dissentients’ superficially more straightforward approach did not.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-1973</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-2139</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S000819731500077X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Attorneys general ; CASE AND COMMENT ; Decision making models ; Freedom of information ; Judicial process ; Law and legislation ; Parliamentary procedure ; Rule of law ; Social aspects ; Sovereignty ; Vetoes</subject><ispartof>Cambridge law journal, 2015-11, Vol.74 (3), p.385-388</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2015</rights><rights>The Cambridge Law Journal 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1728217599/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1728217599?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12847,21376,21394,27924,27925,33223,33611,33769,43733,43814,58238,58471,72960,74221,74310</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Allan, T.R.S.</creatorcontrib><title>THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS</title><title>Cambridge law journal</title><addtitle>C.L.J</addtitle><description>R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, they understood them differently, resulting in disagreement about their correct reconciliation on the facts of the case. The majority of Justices achieved a real integration of these basic principles in a manner that the dissentients’ superficially more straightforward approach did not.</description><subject>Attorneys general</subject><subject>CASE AND COMMENT</subject><subject>Decision making models</subject><subject>Freedom of information</subject><subject>Judicial process</subject><subject>Law and legislation</subject><subject>Parliamentary procedure</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Sovereignty</subject><subject>Vetoes</subject><issn>0008-1973</issn><issn>1469-2139</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1EJZbCD-CAZIlrAx47ju1jtOt2jdIEJdlCuVhumixZsc1ip4f--yZsqZAQJ4_mfeadDyP0DshHICA-VYQQCUow4FMkxLcXaAFxoiIKTL1Ei1mOZv0Veh3CbmaUVAv0vV5rXG4yjYtznKVfz_CXtMxMeqnzOi2vcVVc6VKbi7y-PsNpvsIpvjS5qWpdmjTDV7ou8Izgz5uVWc6plV6ayhR59QaddO5naN8-vadoc67r5TrKiguzTLOoiSEeI8GkSrjknSDM3TiaSOcUV4x2tG2EcCSmJJYtjzkFp6YlY2hUy2hDE8dUkrBT9OHoe_DDr_s2jHY33Pu7qaUFQSUFwZWaKDhSjR9C8G1nD77fO_9ggdj5hPafE04162ON3_ejdds-HEYbWuebH7a_64bf6cFv7e3QzzaMQfIHo4RSoJQSSTjwyer90WoXxsE_96bTFzHJYNLZ03huf-P722371xb_HfAR_8qKuw</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Allan, T.R.S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS</title><author>Allan, T.R.S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-73896585f703aba268aa95932f2ec77a042048e54521a908141c9e32c26a39663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Attorneys general</topic><topic>CASE AND COMMENT</topic><topic>Decision making models</topic><topic>Freedom of information</topic><topic>Judicial process</topic><topic>Law and legislation</topic><topic>Parliamentary procedure</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Sovereignty</topic><topic>Vetoes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Allan, T.R.S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Cambridge law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Allan, T.R.S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS</atitle><jtitle>Cambridge law journal</jtitle><addtitle>C.L.J</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>385</spage><epage>388</epage><pages>385-388</pages><issn>0008-1973</issn><eissn>1469-2139</eissn><abstract>R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, they understood them differently, resulting in disagreement about their correct reconciliation on the facts of the case. The majority of Justices achieved a real integration of these basic principles in a manner that the dissentients’ superficially more straightforward approach did not.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S000819731500077X</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-1973
ispartof Cambridge law journal, 2015-11, Vol.74 (3), p.385-388
issn 0008-1973
1469-2139
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1728217599
source Criminology Collection; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Cambridge Journals Online; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; Lexis+ Journals
subjects Attorneys general
CASE AND COMMENT
Decision making models
Freedom of information
Judicial process
Law and legislation
Parliamentary procedure
Rule of law
Social aspects
Sovereignty
Vetoes
title THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A36%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20RULE%20OF%20LAW,%20PARLIAMENTARY%20SOVEREIGNTY,%20AND%20A%20MINISTERIAL%20VETO%20OVER%20JUDICIAL%20DECISIONS&rft.jtitle=Cambridge%20law%20journal&rft.au=Allan,%20T.R.S.&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=385&rft.epage=388&rft.pages=385-388&rft.issn=0008-1973&rft.eissn=1469-2139&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S000819731500077X&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24693831%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-73896585f703aba268aa95932f2ec77a042048e54521a908141c9e32c26a39663%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1728217599&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S000819731500077X&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20221222080515&rft_jstor_id=24693831&rfr_iscdi=true