Abstract

This review article examines Alison Young’s book, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act. It focuses principally on the theoretical framework within which Young advances her many detailed arguments about the British constitution. In particular, it challenges Young’s contention that the powers of Parliament and courts can be explained by reference to an empirically determinable ‘legal fact’ (whether that ‘fact’ reflects Dicey’s theory of continuing parliamentary sovereignty or some other theory). The review article contends that there are insuperable evidential and philosophical difficulties with this approach to British constitutional theory. In the light of these difficulties, it is argued that Young’s theory (and indeed any other constitutional theory) must be understood as a thoroughly normative account of the powers that Parliament and courts should have