The Human Rights Act 1998 and Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and its intricate relationship with Parliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom. It begins by outlining the significance of the HRA within the UK's constitutional framework and its role as a check on executive powers, emphasizing its alignment with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The report explores the historical context of the ECHR, its adoption by the UK, and the subsequent enactment of the HRA 1998 to incorporate ECHR provisions into domestic law. The main body of the report delves into the potential threats to Parliamentary Sovereignty posed by sections 3 and 4 of the HRA, which grant the judiciary the power to interpret laws in accordance with the ECHR and issue declarations of incompatibility. It examines the extent to which these powers challenge the traditional supremacy of Parliament, particularly concerning the interpretation of laws and the issuance of declarations of incompatibility. The report concludes by summarizing the balance between individual rights, parliamentary authority, and judicial interpretation under the HRA, emphasizing that the judiciary's powers do not undermine the supremacy of the parliament as the ultimate law-making body, but rather it establishes a framework for the judiciary to interpret laws and issue declarations of incompatibility.

The Human Rights Act
1998 and
Parliamentary
Sovereignty

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The human Rights Act, 1998 is a very important part of the constitution of United
Kingdom (UK). This act impact many of the laws that governs UK. This act works as a checker
which is crucial on the executive powers and also provide openness and transparency for the
government which helps them make decisions. These laws are worldwide accepted and
recognised in other jurisdictions (Roznai, 2020). This act helps the government to know the
operations of its practices. The act provides with the rights of the people and also the
responsibility of the parliament, courts and other authorities while exercising their duties with
respect to the said law. This report explains the European Conventions on Human Rights and
The Human rights act, 1998. it also explains the threat which the parliament sovereignty have
due to the provisions of the HRA 1998. The report also helps to know about the powers which
are given to the unelected judiciary under the act which is in access and above to that of the
parliamentary sovereignty.
MAIN BODY
The European Convention on Human Rights i.e. ECHR was adopted just after the two
years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that stated the need for the protection of the
rights of humans and their dignity (Loveland, 2018). ECHR is an international convention which
was introduce to grant political freedom and protection of the rights of the individuals. The
United Kingdom (UK) played the major role in the drafting of the ECHR and the same was
adopted by the country in 1950 after it was signed by the state on 4th of November. UK was the
first state the ratify the made convention in 1951 on 8th of March.
The Human Rights Act. 1998 i.e. HRA 1998 is an act which was introduced in UK as the
result of the ECHR. This act provides with the fundamental rights and freedom in UK to
everyone. This law is the made in accordance with the provisions specified to be implemented in
the domestic laws of the country by ECHR. The bill for the said act was introduced and
presented before the parliament in 1977 on 23rd October and the act received royal assent in 1998
on 9th March. The HRA came into effect in UK on 2nd October, 2000. The act has provided with
fifteen rights out of which few are absolute like: prohibition on torture, slavery, etc. which
cannot be changed but few rights are limited in few of the circumstances like: right to liberty,
marry, education, free elections, etc. The act specifically provides in its section 17 that, rights

which are given to the individuals can be practised by them but such rights shall not be used to
destroy the freedom and rights of the other individual (Englehart, 2017).
Parliamentary Sovereignty is the Principle of the constitution of UK which provides
parliament with the supreme legal authority under which the parliament may either create any
law or end any. The laws made by the parliament are supreme and are the most important and
integral part of the constitution of UK. In UK the courts can not overrule the laws made by the
parliament. The parliament is not allowed to make any such law that the other or new parliament
cannot change in future. Although there are many laws which are passed by the parliament which
have limit the powers of the parliament in UK. Most of the laws are result of the international
conventions and the treaties like: The Human Right Act, 1998. Parliamentary sovereignty
complies to to create all the supreme and the legal stage authority and that was been affected by
the overruling.
The provisions through which the parliament feels to be threaten are the provisions
mentioned under the section 3 and section 4 of the HRA 1998. these provisions are giving
powers to the unelected judiciary to make the interpretation of the law in any best way possible
to to make the decision compatible with the rules and regulations of the ECHR and the HRA
1998 (Lino, 2017).
These sections of the act are made only in accordance with the provisions of the ECHR.
The parliament have the supreme legal authority which provides them with power to make laws
and end them. The power given under the section 3 and section 4 of the act is causing threat to
the parliamentary sovereignty and is giving more powers in excess to the unelected judiciary
(Kadelbach and Roth-Isigkeit, 2017). Even if the declaration of incompatibility is issued by the
judges under section 3, the supreme authority of the parliament is being questioned. Again to
modify any laws and rules are the responsibility of the parliament which they have to create in
accordance to the act of human rights. section of the HRA 1998 which is giving excess powers to
the judiciary system in UK. The only power given under the act is to interpret the laws of the
parliament in best way possible in accordance to provisions of the ECHR and HRA 1998. These
sections are taking away any power from the parliament as the sovereignty of the parliament as
the supreme authority of it still resides with them.
The act of human rights have given any power under any of its section to strike the
legislations or the laws which were made by the parliament for the country. and the act

maintained the sovereignty of parliament while setting up the dialogue model for the same
between the parliament and the court of the country. The power given to the court is only
restricted to the interpretations of the laws made by the parliament and also with the issuance of
the declaration of the incompatibility (Crawford, 2018). The rest is left upon the parliament to
make decision that what exactly do they want to amend and make changes in the said law to
make it compatible and in accordance with the act of human rights.
The parliament as being the supreme law authority has the law making power and they
tends to make all the laws with an equal and validated manner. As according to section 3 and
section 4 of the HRA 1998 the power of making law by the judiciary and to interpret the laws
that are being given are considered in it. All the rules has been laid in the ECHR and HRA 1998,
there has been seen that the parliament use to make all the laws and the nature through which
they implies the power in all the areas and all the sections that has been considered Section 3
covers that it gives power to the judges of the court to interpret the law passed by the parliament
with relations to the HRA 1998. The court may interpret the law the way it wants in accordance
to the provisions of the ECHR to the best way possible. Section.4 under the HRA 1998 which
gives power to the judges that they can issue an incompatibility declaration. This is issued by the
court when the court is in the view that under section.3 of the act, the court cannot make an
interpretation of the laws made by the parliament and those laws are not compatible with the act
of human rights.
Thus there has been analysed that all then laws which are being made by parliament are
there by being amended as per the requirement of the society and the laws that tends out to be
made in according to the working of the parliament it applies that all the laws covers of greater
benefit. The parliament sovereignty is being affected by it, as parliament covers the supreme
authority and as there no person has the right or the substitution which covers out the methods
through which the laws can be changed (Lino, D., 2017). But there has been seen that all such
changes and the amendments which are being taken place in the context of the changing society
creates and impact on the parliament. As it governs that the parliament sovereignty is there by
being lost and by that method it covers out that this affects all the image and the statutory
position of the parliament as being the supreme in all the grounds but there rules are being
overlapped. But even when the declaration of incompatibility is issued by the judges under
section 3, the supreme authority of the parliament is not being questioned.

The rest is left upon the parliament to make decision that what exactly do they want to amend
and make changes in the said law to make it compatible and in accordance with the act of human
rights.
Thus parliament being the supreme authority can not be questioned and all the laws that
are made by the parliament are supreme and all the laws which are being implemented by the
parliament covers the maximum legislation that implies that all the nature and the records which
has been framed in it will cover the maximum interest and that is there by being made as
supremacy always lies with the parliament and there has been a specific nature and the activities
which covers the clear and ambit area.
The powers which are given to the judiciary under the human rights act in section 4, are
confined to the interpretation of the law to the best way in which it can possibly be done. The
judges cannot misuse this power given under the act and go beyond the laws to interpret it. They
are bound to make interpretation of the words which are mentioned in that particular law
(Madsen, 2019). Whole interpreting any of the law by the court, the court is under obligation to
see the intention with which the law in question was made by the parliament.

CONCLUSION
From the above report it is concluded that the human rights act 1998 was introduced by
so that it helps in governing the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the parliament,
court and other authorities to see that those rights are not infringed. The act provides with many
rights which safeguard the interest of the individual and also protect them in various ways. The
laws under the HRA1998 are the result of the ECHR to which UK.
There are rights which are given to judiciary under section 3 and 4 of the act which
provide them the power to interpret the laws of the parliament and upon finding them
incompatible with any of the provisions of the HRA, the court may issue Declaration of
Incompatibility. The powers given to judiciary is not any threat or problem for the sovereignty of
parliament as the supremacy of the parliament is still maintained.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Crawford, J., 2018. The current political discourse concerning international law. The Modern
Law Review, 81(1), pp.1-22.
Englehart, N.A., 2017. Sovereignty, State Failure and Human Rights: Petty Despots and
Exemplary Villains (Vol. 3). Taylor & Francis.
Kadelbach, S. and Roth-Isigkeit, D., 2017. The Right to Invoke Rights as a Limit to
Sovereignty–Security Interests, State of Emergency and Review of UN Sanctions by
Domestic Courts Under the European Convention of Human Rights. Nordic Journal of
International Law, 86(3), pp.275-301.
Lino, D., 2017. Thinking Outside the Constitution on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition:
Entrenching the Racial Discrimination Act.
Loveland, I., 2018. Constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights: a critical
introduction. Oxford University Press.
Madsen, M.R., 2019. Resistance to the European Court of Human Rights: The Institutional and
Sociological Consequences of Principled Resistance. In Principled Resistance to ECtHR
Judgments-A New Paradigm? (pp. 35-52). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Peltner, A., 2017. Competing norms and foreign policy change: humanitarian intervention and
British foreign policy. International Politics, 54(6), pp.745-759.
Roznai, Y., 2020. Power: Comments on Legislated Rights-Securing Human Rights Through
Legislation.