Exam (elaborations)
Public Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Course
- Institution
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Public Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
1 review
By: corinakwokdelossantos • 6 year ago
Seller
Follow
lawnotesxo2
Reviews received
Content preview
UK CONSTITUTION • ↑ Delegated legislation ∴ less scrutiny 4) Deploy Armed Forces à REFORM: specific war powers need consultation?• Multi-level governing • Convention: Must ask Parliament for consent
• Bogdanor (2007): ‘Set of most important rules + common understandings…regulates the o EU law: ↑ influence on decision-making, legislation, rulings o HOC ‘Taming the Prerogative’ report: Legislate this, w/o ↓ Govt’s ability to take swift
relations amongst country’s governing institutions + people’ o Devolution: decentralised executive + legislative powers to Scottish, Welsh, NI institutions action to protect national security
o Rulebook that stipulates powers of institutions + how that power relates to citizens • Rise of judges, b/c HRA/ECA Chandler – It’s for govt to decide what’s best for the state, not courts
• Drafts constitution b/c independence: wars, revolutions, political crises: e.g. French revolution • Institutional crisis? o HOL constitutional committee: No, develop a convention.
o No public confidence in politicians: ↓ voter turnouts, e.g. expenses scandal à Strike balance: Limit disclosure of info to maintain operational security VS. Give
Written v Unwritten o 2009 poll: 71% dissatisfied w/ how Parliament was doing its job Parliament sufficient info to make informed decision
• Written: important rules laid down in a single, legally binding document ∴ ≠ appealing to place Parliament at centre of constitution + Flexible: easily amended + failure to comply ≠ unlawful
+ All key provisions in 1 documents + ↑ Legitimacy, ↑ Accountability
- Won’t cover everything, conventions fill the gaps! Future of WM?
- HOL CC: Govt sets agenda for HOC + ↑ publicity on need for military actions ∴
- America: doesn’t include judicial review • Reinvigorate the system: Recent reforms that ensures govt is accountable -
weakens Parliamentary response ≠ accountable
+ Clearly states how state should operate • ‘Parallel chamber’: ↑ time for debates that scrutinise policies + performance of govt
+ ↑ Morale for troops to know country is supporting them
- Litigation over the precise meaning of words • ‘Topical debates’: Enables MPs to call ministers to account for current concerns - VS. ↓ b/c statute means troops criminalized for ‘unlawful’ deployment + refuse to obey orders
+ Protects citizens from govt abuse • MPs can use expert evidence when scrutinising Bills - Undermines operational effectiveness
- Inflexible to change ∴ hard to amend outdated provisions, e.g. USA removed right • ‘Draft bills’ before legislative process = ↑ consultation + scrutiny - Necessity ∴ shouldn’t ask Parliament whether to go war = inflexible
to own slaves • ↑ Popular participation - Checks + balances/litigation = gridlock!
- Rigid: entrenched, clauses require special procedure to amend o Citizens’ juries to discuss real issues - Only given limited info ≠ informed decisions
- Australia: rarely amended = inflexible Requires o Bogdanor (2009): Constitutional reform hasn’t redistributed power to voters = weakness - Compromises operational security by publicly discussing prior to action
- Switzerland, Ireland: ↑ constitutional amendments = more flexible referendums ∴ proposes ↑ use of referendums
- US: requires ⅔ congress, ¾ state majority to amend • ↑ Legal constitution Overall
• Unwritten: No single legally binding document setting out important rules o Foster (2005): ‘Replace conventions by law’ = clearer + legally enforceable • Not many conventions to limit powers ∴ Parliament = weak control over prerogative
o Bradley: ‘Body of legal rules w/ no special legal status’ • Disintegrate UK: Scottish referendum in 2014 Codify prerogative powers
+ Flexible: responsive to changing circumstances ∴ state can develop law to benefit citizens • Britain leave Europe? FOR: In principle
- Appears ‘uncertain’ b/c no single agreed source of constitutional law o UKIP: 2nd largest party in 2009 in European Parliament elections + Democratic: ↓ scope of discretionary powers
- State free to abuse its powers + remove our rights o Conservatives = anti-integrationist positions, but adamant on remaining a member state + Defines powers ∴ know how it will be used + under what basis
à But, UK had a sophisticated system that respects fundamental rights § 1972: Signed treaty to be EEC member + Accountability: Easier to scrutinise b/c there’s an authority to point to
+ Encourages an evolving constitution § John Major signed Maastricht Treaty = created EU + ROL: Easier to see limits of prerogative = ↑ certainty + govt under the law
§ Gee (2010): Democratic process IS the constitution, b/c political accountability: revise,
+ SoP: Rebalances power from executive to legislature, legislature has ↑ role = ↑ accountability
amend, reject legislature
o Israel, New Zealand, UK: Many written sources, but not in a single document
o ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’: UK constitutional arrangement works well + change is unnecessary
ROYAL PREROGATIVE *Sufficient reforms? Or are more needed? AGAINST: In practice
- Difficult to define ∴ putting into a statute = problematic
o Not necessarily flawed, but if written constitution = clarifies current position? - Loss of flexibility:
o No set definition, just theories: • MOJ (2009): Residual prerogative powers provides useful flexibility in emergencies, e.g. go to
Multiple sources of the constitution
o Blackstone: Powers unique/exclusive to the crown war immediately, no time for Parliament to debate + enact laws
1) Statutes: sets out specific powers of state + protection for citizens
à Overlooks crown’s economic power, doesn’t come within this definition! - Courts can judicially review prerogative powers, e.g. who PM elects as minister
- E.g. BoR 1967, PA 1911 & 1949, HRA 1998, HOL Act 1999 (removed rights of majority of
o Locke: Power of doing public good w/o a rule - Necessity
hereditary peers to sit + vote in HOL), CRA 2005 (LC role + UKSC), FTPA 2011 à E.g. necessity in emergencies: should not wait for Parliament to enact a law - Discretionary govt powers = necessary for quick + efficient decision-making
2) Judicial decisions à Violates ROL, needs a source of law – hard to see limits to prerogative?
o Statutory interpretation: ‘principle of legality’ only interpret if ambiguous Legal control by STATUTES
o Dicey: Remaining residual + discretionary power of the crown ∴ cannot create new powers
o Common law: 1) Dissolving Parliament
à Substance?
§ ↑ justification for rulings b/c based on previous precedents • Convention: Power exercised upon PM’s request
o Historically, powers exercised by the monarch w/o parliamentary approval
§ Obiter = discuss important constitutional principles, e.g. PS, SOP, ROL Unfair political advantage to PM over other parties, to call election when party did good
o In practice, powers exercised by the executive on her behalf
Entick v Carrington à No right to search property w/o lawful authority • Abolished by Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011: Set parliamentary term to 5 years
3) Prerogative Examples o Moved big power from PM to Parliament: 2/3 majority / vote of no confidence within 14 days
4) Conventions • Domestic prerogatives: Appoint ministers, royal assent, leads to early dissolution
• Not all are constitutional, e.g. PM spends xmas at Chequers - Old: Dissolve Parliament + control of Civil Service o Ryan (2012): Executive has majority in HOC ∴ still govt manipulation à No real change?
AG v Manual - Non-justiciable, cannot limit legislative capacity of Parliament • Foreign prerogatives: Declare war, deploy troops, treaty-making, controls issuing passports - Before, PM openly manipulated when called elections, now hidden!
5) EU law Limited by CONVENTIONS à regulates exercise of prerogative power - Requires control mechanisms
6) International law o Brazier: Appears electoral stability = politically helpful for ‘new’ coalition govt
1) Monarch appoints PM
- Dualist state: Usually, unincorporated treaties = no legal effect if not implemented - BUT swiftly passed, no public consultation/pre-legislative scrutiny for a significant
• Convention: appoints leader of political party w/ most votes at election
o Cabinet Manual 2011: Recorded rules + practices, but not a source of constitutional rules • Brazier: If no political solution for hung parliament, monarch may need to intervene constitutional measure!
o HOL: Limited value, only descriptive + Written by Civil servants for themselves > politicians o Lord Howarth: ‘Addressing a non-problem’, more democratic to call an early election b/c let
• Blackburn: mistaken + outdated role
- Not formally approved by Parliament people decide!
§ B/c in practice: purely a symbolic event ∴ limited power à May 2010: did not intervene
o HOC Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Good starting point to produce a o Ryan:
constitution b/c sparks debate on how rules should be written down 2) Appoints ministers § ↑ Certainty = ↑ Electoral turnout
o Dec 2012: no debate yet • Convention: Exercised by Queen upon PM’s advice § Allows Parliament to plan better
§ May ignore wishes of PM
Westminster Model = democratic parliamentary system 2) Treaty-making
§ In practice, bound to appoint those chosen by elected leader = ↑ democratic legitimacy
o Set of arrangements where: • Convention: Ponsonby rule = Before executive ratified treaties, must present to Parliament for 21
§ Bagehot: right to be consulted, encouraged, warned = dignified > efficient role
o Govt drawn from HOC days w/ explanatory memoranda for scrutiny
o Parliament has unlimited legislative competence 3) Royal assent • Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
o Ministers = politically accountable to Parliament • Convention: Royal Assent must be given every Bill approved by Parliament 1) Abolished prerogative to control the civil service, now in statute
- Scrutinised by media, pressure groups, select committees o In theory, doesn’t need to give 2) Treaty-making powers *Not abolished; only CODIFIED!
Problems o Barber: Unlikely to refuse b/c undemocratic + PM has majority support of HOC - Codifies Ponsonby Convention on a statutory footing
• Govt controls Parliament - In practice, merely a figurehead. + ↑ public, b/c explanatory memorandum
o Steers through its drafted legislation, b/c controls HOC agenda + timetable o Not refused since 1708 + Prompts debate ∴ dialogue between Parliament + Executive
∴ little chance for MPs to initiate debate + call ministers to account o Constitutional safeguard? + Parliament may block ratifications = accountable?
§ If unconstitutional/anti-HR bill = may refuse Royal Assent in emergencies - Ryan: Executive controls HOC ∴ inadequate control of this power
• Lacks SOP: Easy to detect changed role of PM + Cabinet
§ Retains reserve powers, but limited by convention - Ratifying EU treaties legally constrained by European Union Act 2011 - referendums!
- Thatcher, Blair = Prime Ministerial govt
§ 1987: Fiji had military coup to remove PM, but Queen didn’t react ∴ not a - Most treaties are technical/no political interests ∴ unrealistic for Parl to scrutinise all treaties
- Major, Brown = collective cabinet govt ∴ Cabinet had ↑ influence over govt decisions
constitutional safeguard? - MPs need aid from lawyers
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.95. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now