Abstract
The theoretical debate about how best to characterise parliamentary sovereignty refuses to go away. This essay is also about parliamentary sovereignty, but it seeks to approach the debate from a different angle. Rather than commending one particular theory over another, I wish to scrutinise an important foundation of the debate. This foundation is an assumption about when legal rules conflict with each other (or ‘legal conflict’). It will be suggested that puzzling claims about legal conflict can be discerned in the theoretical literature on parliamentary sovereignty, and that this may throw doubt on the persuasiveness of those theories. My primary focus is the theory of continuing parliamentary legislative sovereignty, although it will be suggested that competing theories may also suffer from the same shaky foundations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
