Book Review: Michael Gordon, Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929917724358 |
| Author | Chris Monaghan |
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Book ReviewsBritain and Ireland |
Political Studies Review
2018, Vol. 16(1) NP83
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1478929917724358
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Book Review
724358PSW0010.1177/1478929917724358Political Studies ReviewBook Review – Britain and Ireland
book-review2017
Book Review – Britain and Ireland
Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK
Constitution: Process, Politics and
Democracy by Michael Gordon. Oxford: Hart
Publishing, 2016. 366pp., £55.00 (h/b),
ISBN 9781849464659
Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution
is not a defence of Parliament’s legislative sover-
eignty; rather, it makes a positive case for the doc-
trine’s place within the constitution. Michael
Gordon argues that Jennings’ manner and form
theory provides a proper explanation for how par-
liamentary sovereignty operates, with Parliament
able to stipulate the requirements that must be
satisfied in order for its successors to legislate.
Gordon admits that sometimes it may be dif-
ficult to distinguish between procedural limits,
as envisaged by the manner and form theory, and
substantive limits, which are not. He acknowl-
edges Jennings’ failure to provide a sufficient
normative justification for the theory. Therefore,
the purpose of this volume is to provide such a
justification.
Gordon makes a positive case for parliamen-
tary sovereignty on the basis of democracy, with
Parliament entrusted to make laws that will shape
how the United Kingdom will function. In the
light of the opportunities presented to enhance
democratic involvement, Gordon argues that the
manner and form theory ‘is capable of providing
a solid foundation around which our political
constitution could be restructured to greater dem-
ocratic effect’ (pp. 355–356). He does not view
majoritarianism as a risk that justifies limitations
on sovereignty and he defends Parliament’s role
in holding the executive to account.
Gordon is critical of the common law consti-
tutionalist interpretation of the constitution, as it
is not based upon a proper understanding of the
constitution. The notion that the courts can
challenge the validity of an Act is ‘clearly con-
trary to all established precedent’ and ‘legally
absurd’ (pp. 135–136). Gordon dismisses the
obiter dicta in R (on the application of Jackson)
v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 as being
‘the most unsatisfactory [feature], and, in sub-
stance, of little consequence’ (p. 236).
Gordon’s argument is engaging and he
does not hesitate to critique the empirical and
theoretical legitimacy of competing view-
points. He provides a critical perspective of
the existing literature and draws upon this to
support his argument. Gordon succeeds in
presenting a convincing argument to support
his justification for Parliament’s legislative
sovereignty.
Although there will be those who may disa-
gree with some of the views put forward, this
book does provide a justification for the man-
ner and form theory. It is well-written and will
be of considerable interest to academics, post-
graduate students and practitioners. In the light
of the importance of ‘sovereignty’ in the cur-
rent climate, this book will appeal to a wide
readership.
Chris Monaghan
(University of Worcester)
To continue reading
Request your trial