Public Law Litigation and the Belfast Agreement

Abstract

This article examines the approach that Northern Ireland courts have taken to the resolution of judicial review applications arising from the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 1998. Focusing on the insights offered into the relationship between law and politics, and referring the court decisions to academic debates about the need for the adoption of revised juridical techniques in the light of constitutional change, the article suggests that the jurisprudence reflects a tension between more novel and orthodox modes of judicial reasoning. The tension, which has been most apparent in the context of approaches to statutory interpretation, is argued to have led to the Belfast Agreement having only a very limited impact on the outcome of some cases. While the limited impact can be said to be consonant with constitutional orthodoxy, the article suggests that orthodoxy is apt to diminish the significance of the wider process of change ongoing in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Agreement is structured around a number of unique institutional understandings and relations, and it is argued that these demand the adoption of more responsive juridical techniques. Thus the article concludes by identifying those aspects of the jurisprudence that might be said to provide the more appropriate means for the resolution of some Belfast Agreement disputes.