ON THE NATURE OF AND SOME CHALLENGES TO PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY: A JURISPRUDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 83 Sayı: 1

Yahya Berkol Gülgeç

https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.1536827

Öz

The article ultimately claims that the classical formulation of parliamentary sovereignty, properly understood, survives the most contemporary and relevant challenges it faces. The first part is reserved for the examination of the content and the source of the principle. The Diceyan conception of the principle is elaborated and defended against Wade’s version. Then, based on the Allan – Goldsworthy argument, the article determines that it is theoretically more appropriate to conceive of the principle as the rule of recognition. The second part focuses on the most contemporary and relevant challenges to the principle. These are the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the European Communities Act 1972, and the Human Rights Act 1998. The challenge posed by the Parliament Acts fails because the Acts do not legally restrict the Parliament. Similarly, based on the distinction between normative hierarchy and the primacy of application, the European Communities Act needs to be conceived of as relating to the obligations of the law-applying officials and not the Parliament. Lastly, the four challenges raised by the Human Rights Act fail based on discussions surrounding the doctrine of implied repeal, the concept of normative collision, and the distinction between constitutional and ordinary statutes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

parliamentary sovereignty, normative hierarchy, the rule of recognition, common law, implied repeal.

Teşekkür

An earlier version of this article was presented online at ‘Genel Kamu Hukukçuları Kolekyumu’ (The Colloquium of General Public Lawyers) on 11 April 2021. I would like to thank Thomas Adams (University of Oxford) very much for his insightful comments on a draft of the paper. I am also indebted to Melih Çiçekci (Bursa Uludağ University) and Salih Taşdöğen (Bursa Uludağ University) for their comments on the earlier versions of the paper. Lastly, I would like to thank to anonymous reviewers for their comments and criticism. All remaining errors are my own.

PARLAMENTONUN ÜSTÜNLÜĞÜNÜN MAHİYETİ VE KARŞILAŞTIĞI BAZI GÜÇLÜKLER ÜZERİNE: HUKUKBİLİMSEL BİR PERSPEKTİF

Öz

Makale en nihayetinde doğru biçimde anlaşılan parlamentonun üstünlüğünün klasik formülasyonunun, karşılaştığı en yeni ve alakalı zorluklara galip geldiğini iddia etmektedir. İlk bölüm ilenin içeriği ve kaynağının incelenmesine ayrılmıştır. İlkeye dair Dicey’nin anlayışı detaylandırılmış ve Wade’in versiyonuna karşı savunulmuştur. Sonrasında, Allan – Goldsworthy tartışmasına dayanılarak, ilkeyi tanıma kuralı olarak anlamanın teorik açıdan daha uygun olduğu belirlenmiştir. İkinci bölüm ilkenin karşılaştığı en yakın tarihli ve alakalı zorlukları ele almaktadır. Bunlar 1911 ve 1949 tarihli Parlamento Kanunları, 1972 tarihli Avrupa Toplulukları Kanunu, 1998 tarihli İnsan Hakları Kanunudur. Parlamento Kanunlarının teşkil ettiği güçlük bu kanunlar Parlamentoyu hukuken sınırlandırmadığı için atlatılabilir. Benzer biçimde, normlar hiyerarşisi ve uygulama önceliği arasındaki farka dayanarak, Avrupa Toplulukları Kanunu’nun da Parlamento’nun değil, hukuk uygulayıcılarının görev ve sorumluluklarına ilişkin olduğunu düşünmek gerekir. Son olarak, İnsan Hakları Kanunu’nun teşkil ettiği dört güçlük, zımnî ilga, normatif çatışma kavramı ve anayasal kanunlar ile sıradan kanunlar arasındaki ayrım etrafındaki tartışmalar temelinde atlatılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

parlamentonun üstünlüğü, normatif hiyerarşi, tanıma kuralı, common law, zımnî ilga.

Kaynakça

• Alchourrόn, Carlos E. and Bulygin, Eugenio, “The Expressive Conception of Norms”, in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Berlin, Springer, 1981, p. 95-124.
• Alder, John, General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law, London, Palgrave MacMillan, 4th Edition, 2002.
• Allan, T. R. S., Law, Liberty and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism, Oxford, Clarendon, 1995.
• Allan, T. R. S., “Parliamentary Sovereignty: Law, Politics, and Revolution”, Law Quarterly Review, Volume 113, April 1997, p. 443-452.
• Allan, T. R. S., “The Common Law as Constitution: Fundamental Rights and First Principles”, in Cheryl Saunders (ed.), The Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia, Alexandria, The Federation Press, 1996, p. 146-166.
• Allan, T. R. S., The Sovereignty of Law: Freedom, Constitution, and Common Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Anav, Gil. “Parliamentary Sovereignty: An Anachronism”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 27, Issue 3, 1989, p. 631-656.
• Arsel, İlhan, “Lordlar Kamarasının Salâhiyetlerini Tahdide Son Teşebüüsler” [Latest Attempts to Restrict the Powers of the House of Lords], Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume 7, Issue 1, March 1950, p. 92-115.
• Aulehner, Josef, Grundrechte und Gesetzgebung [Fundamental Rights and Lawmaking], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
• Bacon, Francis, “The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh”, in James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Demon Heath (eds.), The Works of Francis Bacon, Harlow, Longman & Co, 1838, Volume VI, p. 1-263.
• Barber, Nicholas W., “Sovereignty Re-examined: The Courts, Parliament and Statutes”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 20, Issue 1, Spring 2000, p. 131-154.
• Barber, Nicholas W., “The Afterlife of Parliamentary Sovereignty”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2011, p. 144-154.
• Barnett, Hilaire, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Abingdon, Routledge, 10th Edition, 2013.
• Bickel, Alexander M, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2nd Edition, 1986.
• Bix, Brian, “Jules Coleman, Legal Positivism, and Legal Authority”, Quinnipiac Law Review, Volume 16, Issue 3, Fall 1996, p. 241-254.
• Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, London, A. Strahan, 15th Edition, 1809, Volume IV.
• Bogdanor, Vernon, “Imprisoned by a Doctrine: The Modern Defence of Parliamentary Sovereignty”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 32, Issue 1, Spring 2012, p. 179-195.
• Bradley, Anthony, “The Sovereignty of Parliament: Form or Substance?”, in Jeffrey Jowell and Dawn Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 7th Edition, 2011, p. 35-69.
• Bradley, Anthony W. and Ewing, Keith David, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Harlow, Pearson, 14th Edition, 2007.
• Carroll, Alex, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Harlow, Pearson, 10th Edition, 2021.
• Coke, Edward, Institutes of the Laws of England, London, W. Rawlins, 6th Edition, 1681, Volume IV.
• Craig, Paul, “Britain in the European Union”, in Jeffrey Jowell and Dawn Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 7th Edition, 2011, p. 102-131.
• Crisp, Roger, “Prudential and Moral Reasons”, in Daniel Star (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 800-820.
• Crisp, Roger, Sacrifice Regained: Morality and Self-interest in British Moral Philosophy from Hobbes to Bentham, Oxford, Clarendon, 2019.
• Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 10th Edition, 1979.
• Ekins, Richard, “Legislative Freedom in the United Kingdom”, Law Quarterly Review, Volume 133, 2017, p. 582-605.
• Eleftheriadis, Pavlos, “Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Constitution”, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Volume 22, Issue 2, July 2009, p. 267-290.
• Elliot, Mark, “United Kingdom: Bicameralism, Sovereignty, and the Unwritten Constitution”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 5, Issue 2, April 2007, p. 370-379.
• Elliot, Mark, “Parliamentary Sovereignty and the New Constitutional Order”, Legal Studies, Volume 22, Issue 3, 2002, p. 340-376.
• Fairhust, John, The Law of the European Union, Harlow, Pearson, 8th Edition, 2010.
• Fitzgerald, Patrick, “The Paradox of Parliamentary Sovereignty”, Irish Jurist, Volume 7, Issue 1, Summer 1972, p. 28-48.
• Forsyth, Christopher, “The Definition of Parliament After Jackson: Can the Life of Parliament Be Extended Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949?”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2011, p. 132-143.
• Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy, Oxford, Clarendon, 1999.
• Gordon, Michael, Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy, Oxford, Hart, 2015.
• Green, Leslie, The Germ of Justice: Essays in General Jurisprudence, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2023.
• Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol, Normlar Hiyerarşisi: Türk, Alman ve İngiliz Hukuk Sistemlerinde Kural İşlemlerin ve Mahkeme Kararlarının Hiyerarşik Gücü [Hierarchy of Norms: The Hierarchical Power of Regulatory Acts and Court Decisions in Turkish, German and English Legal Systems], İstanbul, On İki Levha, 2nd Edition, 2018.
• Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Oxford, Clarendon, 3rd Edition, 2012.
• Hart, H. L. A., “The Morality of Law”, Harvard Law Review, Volume 78, Issue 6, April 1965, p. 1281-1295.
• Herzog, Roman, Allgemeine Staatslehre [General Constitutional Theory], Königstein, Athenäum, 1971.
• Himma, Kenneth Einar, “The Ties That Bind: An Analysis of the Concept of Obligation”, Ratio Juris, Volume 26, Issue 1, March 2013, p. 16-46.
• Himma, Kenneth Einar, “Towards a Comprehensive Positivist Theory of Legal Obligation”, Ankara Law Review, Volume 9, Issue 2, Winter 2012, p. 109-134.
• Jellinek, Georg, Gesetz und Verordnung: Staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen auf rechtgeschichtlicher und rechtsvergleichender Grundlage [Statute and Ordinance: Constitutional Studies on a Legal-Historical and Comparative Basis], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1887.
• Kay, Richard, “Constitutional Change and Wade’s Ultimate Political Fact”, University of Queensland Law Journal, Volume 35, Issue 1, 2016, p. 31-46.
• Kearns, Thomas R., “Legal Normativity and Morality”, Western Ontario Law Review, Volume 14, 1975, p. 71-104.
• Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Norms, Oxford, Clarendon, 1991.
• Kelsen, Hans, Pure Theory of Law, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange, 2nd Edition, 2008.
• Kramer, Matthew H., In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law Without Trimmings, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Lakin, Stuart, “Debunking the Idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 28, Issue 4, Winter 2008, p. 709-734.
• Le Sueur, Andrew, “Fundamental Principles”, in David Feldman (ed.), English Public Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 2009.
• Lile, William Minor, “Judge-Made Law”, Virginia Law Review, Volume 15, Issue 6, April 1929, p. 525-536.
• Lubert, Howard L., “Sovereignty and Liberty in William Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’”, The Review of Politics, Volume 72, Issue 2, Spring 2010, p. 271-297.
• MacCormick, Neil, Questioning Sovereignty, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Marmor, Andrei, Philosophy of Law, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2011.
• Marmor, Andrei, Social Conventions: From Language to Law, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2009.
• McConalogue, Jim, The British Constitution Resettled: Parliamentary Sovereignty Before and After Brexit, Londra, Palgrave MacMillan, 2020.
• McGarry, John, “Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty”, Legal Studies, Volume 32, Issue 4, December 2012, p. 577-599.
• Montpensier, Roy Stone de, “British Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Critical Inquiry”, Louisiana Law Review, Volume 26, Issue 4, June 1966, p. 753-788.
• Muňoz, Daniel, “Obligations to Oneself”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2022. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/self-obligations/, Date of Access: 14 August 2024.
• Ogorek, Markus, “The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty in Comparative Perspective”, German Law Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, June 2005, p. 967-980.
• Özbudun, Ergun, Anayasacılık ve Demokrasi [Constitutionalism and Democracy], İstanbul, Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2019.
• Özbudun, Ergun, “İngiltere’de Parlâmento Egemenliği Teorisi” [The Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty in England], Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume 25, Issue 1, Mart 1968, p. 59-79.
• Pino, Giorgio, “Positivism, Legal Validity, and the Separation of Law and Morals”, Ratio Juris, Volume 27, Issue 2, June 2014, p. 190-217.
• Raz, Joseph, Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Raz, Joseph, Practical Reason and Norms, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Raz, Joseph, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979.
• Shapiro, Scott J., “What is the Rule of Recognition (And Does It Exist?)”, in Matthew D. Adler and Kenneth Einar Himma (eds.), The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 235- 268.
• Shecaira, Fábio Perin, “Sources of Law Are not Legal Norms”, Ratio Juris, Volume 28, Issue 1, March 2014, p. 15-30. Varuhas, Jason N. E., “The Principle of Legality”, Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 79, Issue 3, November 2020, p. 578-614.
• Wade, H. W. R., “The Basis of Legal Sovereignty”, Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 13, Issue 2, November 1955, p. 172-197.
• Wade, H. W. R., “Sovereignty: Revolution or Evolution?”, Law Quarterly Review, Volume 112, October 1996, p. 568-575.
• Weill, Rivka, “Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: On the Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power”, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Volume 39, Issue 2, Winter 2012, p. 457-512.
• Weyland, Ines, “The Application of Kelsen’s Theory of Legal System to European Community Law”, Law and Philosophy, Volume 21, Issue 1, January 2002, p. 1-37.
• Young, Alison L., Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act, Oxford, Hart, 2009.