Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 07 March 2021

Abstract and Keywords

This article argues that the story of the ‘judicialization’ of British politics is to some extent a story of paradox and contradiction, in which outstanding questions remain on each of the three issues of effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability. The ‘concept of the rule of law’ was a source of judicial power and a source of conflict between judges and politicians throughout the twentieth century. Two examples are illustrated that show in different ways how legislation may be constrained by judicial perceptions about the rule of law, which may operate to confine the scope of the legislation, and with it the intention of parliament. The effectiveness and legitimacy of judicial review are described. Judicial power formally seems to be expanding in a number of ways. It is true that the compelling need for judicial independence creates institutional and intellectual barriers to the idea of judicial accountability.

Keywords: British politics, judicialization, judicial review, judiciary, rule of law, effectiveness, legitimacy, judicial accountability, judicial independence, judicial power

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.