As mentioned as above, under rule of law everyone shall be fair and equal in front of law. One of the important element In Raz’s principle is the independence of judiciary has to be guaranteed. This showing the judicial independence is the fundamental structure of the idea rule of law. In case M v Home office, it implies that even though the individuals representing the executive, the courts still have power to grant remedies against a minister in his office capacity. The courts are armed with coercive powers exercisable in proceedings for contempt of
Is a unjust law one that doesn’t bind lawmakers to obey ?. Is one justified when disobeying an unjust law ? . I believe that there is a difference between laws like MLK. However, the law is the law, and when disobeyed whether unjust or just, consequences will be determined “by the code of the law”.
It must be for a proven breach of the established law of the land »6 In addition it exists an act called the Act of Parliament, which requires legal regulators to support the constitutional principle of the rule of law. Lord Hope also said «The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based»7 The rule of law is therefore prevalent in our legal
Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law. I believe legal paternalism is the only principle that may justify laws, and it will be explained why by showing how Mill’s own views allow for legal paternalism, how Dworkin perseveres freedom through interference, and how there are functions in place to minimize paternalistic interference. However, we must begin by defining what these two philosophies are. First, the harm principle will be explained. Mill himself writes it as being, “… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
First, the premises are acceptable in basis of facts. British constitution is unwritten, which is “an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties” and the core principle is that “what the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.” (University College London). In this sense, the probability lies that there are no constitutional devices which allow abolishing the monarchy. Furthermore, the statement about British Constitutional Democracy is a priori, which can be known to be true on the basis of meanings of terms that Britain is ruled by laws. What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged.
But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts could not hold the Act of Parliament invalid” (Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke (1969) – Lord Reid) What the statute itself enacts cannot be unlawful, because what the statute says is itself the law, and the highest form of law that is known to this country. It is the law which prevails over every other form of law, and it is not for the court to say that a parliamentary enactment, the highest law in this country, is illegal.” (Cheney v Conn ) ord Denning: "can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse these laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom, once given cannot be taken away" (Blackburn v AG (1971)) 3) No body, including a court of law, can question the validity of an Act of
Legal Positivism Legal Positivism is the view that law is separate from morals. Law and morals are completely separate, the validity of law is not assessed on its morals but is assessed on its procedure. Did the people who make the law have the authority to do it? Kelsen and Hart provide two modern theories of Legal Positivism. Kelsen theory is relevant to decisions makers who wish to know what the law is, because the theory deals with the grounds for law and its validity.
Constitution is necessary for the coordinating of a state as it involves the fundamental rules and regulations in which a state exists . However the Britain constitution involves a written foundation such as the statutes. It is one of the few that is not written down in a single document . As an idea by Blick, it is due to the absence of a serious moment in the history, such as a revolution or an independence that has made Britain transformed the constitution to the level codifying it. However, two of the most important regulations of the Britain constitution are known because it is much based on Parliamentary Supremacy (means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights) and the division of powers (meaning that Parliament, as opposed to a written constitution, it is the highest source of law in the United kingdom and that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary powers would be divided among themselves.
Law is a conservative institution whether international or domestic. Discussing the differences between domestic and international law may generally lead some to believe that either one or the other is the “real” type of law. The first step in refuting the argument that international law is not “real” law is defining the varied elements of law. Then, after assessing what constitutes law, determining whether international law is “real” law is a matter of finding these elements within the concept of international law. Hence, international law is “real” law because it possesses the various elements that define the notion of law.