Business Law: Human Rights Act Impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty

This assignment analyzes the Human Rights Act (HRA) and its effect on Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. It examines whether the HRA has refined or eroded parliamentary sovereignty, considering the Act's incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The analysis includes an overview of the HRA's provisions, its relationship with the Parliament and judiciary, and the power dynamics between them. The assignment also reviews initial posts discussing the HRA, its implications, and the balance of power within the UK's constitutional framework. It concludes that the HRA does not erode Parliamentary sovereignty, as it can be repealed through legislative process and the Parliament retains the power to make and amend laws. The judiciary's role in interpreting the HRA and issuing declarations of incompatibility is also discussed. The assignment references relevant legal literature to support its arguments.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Answer
The Human Rights Act is considered to be giving effect to the various provisions which
are relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into that of the UK law. Such
has also made vital changes or modifications to the constitutional law of the United Kingdom
and along with such the judges were also given certain powers under the Act (Lakin 2018).
The Act had been passed in the year 1998, which was to defend these rights in the courts.
In addition to such, it also compelled or mandated the local councils, the government and the
police to treat everyone in an equal way with utmost dignity and respect. The Act also protected
the young, old and the poor (McConalogue 2020). In order to understand whether the
Parliamentary sovereignty has been refined by the Human Rights Act and whether the
government along with the Parliament has been accountable for the actions it is crucial to
comprehend and evaluate the status of the human rights and the Parliamentary sovereignty prior
to the introduction of the Act. It is also essential to understand the relationship between the
Parliament and the judiciary and whether such has altered the balance of power (NA, Power and
Allison 2016).
The Parliament is considered to construct as well as deconstruct laws when necessary
therefore, there is no official power provided to the courts in order to strike down the legislation
and the HRA is not entrenched. Therefore, the HRA is not able to erode Parliamentary
sovereignty. Furthermore, the HRA requires legislation under section 3 to be interpreted in such
a way that would be consistent with the rights of the Convention and under section 4 it also
needs to issue declaration of incompatibility. Thus, to conclude, Human Rights Act is not

2BUSINESS LAW
considered to be entrenched, as such can be repealed through the legislative process and thus, it
is not destructive or does not erode Parliamentary supremacy (McConalogue 2019).
References
Lakin, S., 2018. The Manner and Form Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Nelson’s Eye
View of the UK Constitution?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), pp.168-189.
McConalogue, J., 2019. The British constitution resettled? Parliamentary sovereignty after the
EU Referendum. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(2), pp.439-458.
McConalogue, J., 2020. Parliamentary Sovereignty, the EU Free Movement of Persons and the
Precedent of Fundamental Rights Provision. In The British Constitution Resettled (pp. 189-231).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
NA, N., Power, S. and Allison, G., 2016. Realizing human rights: Moving from inspiration to
impact. Springer.
Strauss, P.L., 2019. Eroding Checks on Presidential Authority-Norms, the Civil Service, and the
Courts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 94, p.581.
Initial Post 1
Dear Mark, thank you for the post.
As you have mentioned in your post I agree that the UK parliament had been designed to
include and combine the ECHR into the UK law, which would ensure that the public bodies
would not be operating in a way that would directly contravene the European Convention. In
addition to such it would also be agreed upon that, the law made by the Parliament would not be
overridden for the Act and therefore, such as a result would be considered to retain the

3BUSINESS LAW
sovereignty of the UK Parliament (Peltner 2017). However, such can also be agreed upon that
although the UK Parliament is considered to enjoy sovereignty they must be able to conform
with the European Courts in order to maintain the relationship with the European Union and if
such were to be rejected the ECHR would be able to cause restrictions in order to access the
European Economic Community. It also discussed the perception of the Parliament and whether
such would regain the sovereign rule with the help of Brexit and whether any kind of deviation
would be possible without breaking all kinds of ties with the European Union (Gee and Young
2016).
References
NA, N., Power, S. and Allison, G., 2016. Realizing human rights: Moving from inspiration to
impact. Springer.
Peltner, A., 2017. Competing norms and foreign policy change: humanitarian intervention and
British foreign policy. International Politics, 54(6), pp.745-759.
Initial Post 2
Dear James, thank you for the post.
As you have mentioned in your post I agree that the parliament enjoys supremacy over
the judiciary as they have the power to construct and deconstruct the laws. This particular post
starts with the criticism of the Human Rights Act 1988 for providing with weak protection,
which can be agreed upon to an extent. Therefore, in comparison to the powers of the Parliament
the Act pertaining to Human Rights provides a weak protection. Furthermore, the Parliament
also has the power to amend and repeal any Act, which gives them sufficient power over the Act,
and therefore, such a power needs to be used diligently by the Parliament. In addition to such, it

4BUSINESS LAW
can also be agreed upon that the Human Rights Act covers all the basic provisions that have been
laid down in the ECHR therefore, such are in compliance with the Act which had been
constructed (Jay 2017). However, it can be understood that if such rights are infringed upon then
the European Union would be able to intervene over the sovereign elects as the presiding power
of the Human Rights Bill would be on the European Union. Thus, the statement provided in this
particular post would be agreed upon as the supremacy is enjoyed by the Parliament to an extent
(NA Power and Allison 2016).
References
Jay, Z., 2017. Keeping rights at home: British conceptions of rights and compliance with the
European Court of Human Rights. The British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 19(4), pp.842-860.
NA, N., Power, S. and Allison, G., 2016. Realizing human rights: Moving from inspiration to
impact. Springer.
Initial Post 3
Dear Elena, thank you for the post.
As you have mentioned in your post I agree that UK has a constitutional structure which involves
the legislative, executive and judiciary. This particular post also states the principles relating to
democracy along with freedom, equality as well as the rule of law. It further states that the HRA
is considered to represent the common values and helps in protecting the individuals by
providing them with their freedoms and rights and such can be agreed upon. However, the
supremacy of the parliament is considered to be conserved as they have the ability to make the
laws without facing any kind of legal restrictions. In accordance with this post, it can be agreed

5BUSINESS LAW
upon by saying that the Parliament enjoys a certain amount of supremacy as the rights of the
individuals are also in compliance with the individual’s freedom and equality rights which have
been laid down in the Human Rights Act (Lakin 2018). However, it can argued upon and
challenged that the Parliament in spite of being able to repeal any Convention or Act cannot
repeal the laws relating to the freedom and equality of an individual as those are considered to be
inherent in nature and such cannot be taken away by law. Therefore, to conclude, it can be stated
that although Parliament has supremacy over the HRA to an extent it cannot take away the
inherent or basic rights (Amos, M., 2019).
References
Amos, M., 2019. The Future of Human Rights Law in the United Kingdom. J. Int'l & Comp.
L., 6, p.87.
Lakin, S., 2018. The Manner and Form Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Nelson’s Eye
View of the UK Constitution?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), pp.168-189.
Initial Post 4
Dear Judith, thank you for the post.
As you have mentioned in your post I agree that the citizens are given certain
fundamental rights, which they are entitled to, and such has been laid down in the Human Rights
Act with a series of articles. This particular post also states that the Parliament is considered to
enjoy supremacy and sovereignty rather than the HRA which is correct to an extent as it has the
authority to overrule any Act or amend any Act which would provide the Parliament with
sufficient amount of power to have an upper hand on the Human Rights Act 1998 (Jay, Z.,
2017). However, it can be stated that the impact of the Human Rights Act has not eroded

6BUSINESS LAW
Parliamentary sovereignty as the Parliament would have the power to make the laws and
legislations which would be beneficial for the citizens. Therefore, such would be in accordance
with the Human rights principles. The rights, which are to be enforced by the Parliament, would
be with the help and assistance of the Acts and therefore, it does not erode Parliamentary
sovereignty as they would have the power. Thus, it can be concluded that the Human Rights Act
can guide the Parliament to enforce certain rights on the citizens and give them certain freedoms
which would be beneficial for them but cannot erode Parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty as
they have the ultimate power. It can be said that Human Rights provide a weak protection system
to an extent (Gee and Young 2016).
References
Gee, G. and Young, A.L., 2016. Regaining Sovereignty? Brexit, the UK Parliament and the
Common Law. European Public Law, 22(1), pp.131-147.
Jay, Z., 2017. Keeping rights at home: British conceptions of rights and compliance with the
European Court of Human Rights. The British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 19(4), pp.842-860.
Initial Post 5
Dear Peter, thank you for the post.
As you have mentioned in your post I agree that the main provisions of the ECHR are
considered to be incorporated into the law of United Kingdom but the execution or
implementation of such are not considered to be complete as the Parliamentary sovereignty is
conserved and well-maintained. Such statement can be agreed upon (Madondo 2019). However,
it has also been stated that the new declarations on this parliamentary sovereignty can be

7BUSINESS LAW
overturned only by the relevant minister relating to section 10 where the power to revoke or
amend has been laid down. Therefore, such can be ensured that the parliament would have the
sovereignty to amend or revoke as the minister would be able to leave such legislation if it is
found to be incompatible therefore, the preservation of the Parliamentary sovereignty would be
prevalent. Therefore, it can completely be agreed upon that the minister might at times be
prejudiced towards a certain legal system and therefore such might have an impact to challenge
the parliamentary sovereignty (McConalogue 2019).
References
Madondo, M.I., 2019. The Role of the Legal Sector in Developing a Legally-Conscious
Society. THRHR, 82, p.353.
McConalogue, J., 2019. The British constitution resettled? Parliamentary sovereignty after the
EU Referendum. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(2), pp.439-458.
Summary Post
It can be stated that the Parliament is considered to have a certain option to act therefore,
the Human Rights Act is not considered to be entrenched at all as such can be repealed through
the process in the Parliament. The Human Rights therefore cannot be said to be destructive of the
Parliamentary supremacy or the sovereignty (Mcconalogue 2018). If the UK passes any Act,
which would be differing, from the Human Rights Act then the judge would have the power and
the authority to provide with a declaration of incompatibility and therefore after such declaration
the Parliament would be advised to alter and change the law (Madondo 2019). Thus, the Act
would not have much authority over the Parliament as the Parliament would be able to overrule
the Act and its provisions at any time. However, the law would remain valid until and unless the

8BUSINESS LAW
Parliament decides to act on it but they do not have any legal obligation to do such. Therefore, it
can be said the Parliament has the supreme authority to change or alter the law and therefore, the
Human Rights Act cannot erode the Parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore any Act would not be
having any power over the Parliament as the judges can only direct or advice the Parliament to
change a law of necessary but it would be upon the Parliament to do so. Thus, it can be said that
the Parliament supremacy or sovereignty would be intact as they have the power to make the
laws and along with making they can repeal or amend those laws (McConalogue 2019).
Journal Entry
Contract is considered to be a type of agreement which would be enforceable by law. It
would be binding on both the parties who have entered into a contract and if there has been any
kind of non-performance then such would constitute as a breach in the contract and therefore, the
party who had committed such breach would have to pay for compensation or damages. There
are certain elements that needs to be considered before making a contract valid. If those
essential elements have not been fulfilled then it would not be considered to be a valid contract.
Firstly, in order to make a valid contract the parties need to make an offer and then accept the
offer made. There is a difference between an offer an invitation to treat because an offer is
considered to be a proposal and on the other hand an invitation to treat is considered to mean that
an individual is being invited to make a proposal. Such has been highlighted in the case of
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. Secondly, an offer which has been made by one of
the parties need to be accepted. It can be understood from the case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR
6 QB 597 Thirdly, consideration needs to be there where the parties need to fulfil the terms and
promises made in the contract and should also have an intention to create a legal relation. It can
be understood from the case of Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2.

9BUSINESS LAW
Lastly, the parties need to be have a legal capacity in a contract which would mean that they
need to have sound mind or should be of legal age. Therefore, these essential elements need to be
fulfilled for a valid contract (Beale et al. 2019).
These are some of the essential things that had been knowledgeable and it would be
helpful as such would also assist in personal development. These essential requirements would
help to draft a contract in a more detailed manner and such would be beneficial in the long run.

10BUSINESS LAW
References
Amos, M., 2019. The Future of Human Rights Law in the United Kingdom. J. Int'l & Comp.
L., 6, p.87.
Beale, H., Fauvarque-Cosson, B., Rutgers, J. and Vogenauer, S., 2019. Cases, materials and text
on contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gee, G. and Young, A.L., 2016. Regaining Sovereignty? Brexit, the UK Parliament and the
Common Law. European Public Law, 22(1), pp.131-147.
Human Rights Act 1998.
Jay, Z., 2017. Keeping rights at home: British conceptions of rights and compliance with the
European Court of Human Rights. The British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 19(4), pp.842-860.
Lakin, S., 2018. The Manner and Form Theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Nelson’s Eye
View of the UK Constitution?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), pp.168-189.
Madondo, M.I., 2019. The Role of the Legal Sector in Developing a Legally-Conscious
Society. THRHR, 82, p.353.
Mcconalogue, J., 2018. The ‘rule of the recognised helm’: How does European Union
membership impact upon UK Parliamentary sovereignty? (Doctoral dissertation, The Open
University).
McConalogue, J., 2019. The British constitution resettled? Parliamentary sovereignty after the
EU Referendum. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(2), pp.439-458.

11BUSINESS LAW
McConalogue, J., 2020. Parliamentary Sovereignty, the EU Free Movement of Persons and the
Precedent of Fundamental Rights Provision. In The British Constitution Resettled (pp. 189-231).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
NA, N., Power, S. and Allison, G., 2016. Realizing human rights: Moving from inspiration to
impact. Springer.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.
Peltner, A., 2017. Competing norms and foreign policy change: humanitarian intervention and
British foreign policy. International Politics, 54(6), pp.745-759.
Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.
Strauss, P.L., 2019. Eroding Checks on Presidential Authority-Norms, the Civil Service, and the
Courts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 94, p.581.