1
Bradley AW, Ewing KD, Knight C. Constitutional and administrative law. Sixteenth edition. Harlow, England: Pearson 2014.
2
Elliott M, Thomas R. Public law. Third edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press 2017.
3
Jowell JL, Oliver D, O’Cinneide C. The changing constitution. Eighth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press 2015.
4
Leyland P, Anthony G. Textbook on administrative law. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013.
5
Craig PP. Administrative law. 7th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2012.
6
Harlow C, Rawlings R. Law and administration. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009.
7
Bingham TH. The rule of law. London: Allen Lane 2010.
8
Leyland P. The constitution of the United Kingdom: a contextual analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing 2012.
9
Loughlin M. The British constitution: a very short introduction. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press 2013.
10
Bogdanor V. The new British Constitution. Oxford: Hart Pub 2009.
11
King A. The British constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.
12
Bogdanor V, British Academy. The British constitution in the twentieth century. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press 2003.
13
Horne A, Drewry G, editors. Parliament and the law. Second edition. Oxford: Hart Publishing 2018.
14
Bamforth N, Leyland P, editors. Accountability in the contemporary constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014.
15
Tomkins, Adam. Public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003.
16
Campbell T, Ewing KD, Tomkins A. Sceptical essays on human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001.
17
Oliver D. Constitutional reform in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003.
18
Johnson, Nevil. Reshaping the British constitution: essays in political interpretation. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan 2004.
19
Turpin C, Tomkins A. British government and the constitution: text and materials. 7th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 2012.
20
Allan TRS. The sovereignty of law: freedom, constitution and common law. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013.
21
Kavanagh A. Constitutional review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009.
22
Young AL. Parliamentary sovereignty and the Human Rights Act. Oxford: Hart Publishing 2009.
23
Hickman T, Craig PP. Public law after the Human Rights Act. Oxford: Hart Pub 2010.
24
Brady ADP. Proportionality and deference under the UK Human Rights Act: an institutionally sensitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012.
25
Jackson and others (Appellants) v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General. [2005] UKHL 56.
26
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) (18 February 2002).
27
Campbell D, Young J. The metric martyrs and the entrenchment jurisprudence of Lord Justice Laws. Public Law. 2002;399–406.
28
Barber NW. The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2011;9:144–54. doi: 10.1093/icon/mor023
29
Young AL. Sovereignty: Demise, afterlife, or partial resurrection? International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2011;9:163–71. doi: 10.1093/icon/mor028
30
Allan TRS. Parliamentary sovereignty: law, politics, and revolution. Law Quarterly Review. 1997;443–52.
31
Gordon M. The conceptual foundations of parliamentary sovereignty: reconsidering Jennings and Wade. Public Law. 2009;519–43.
32
Goldsworthy JD. The sovereignty of Parliament: history and philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon 2001.
33
Laws J. Law and democracy. Public Law. 1995;72–93.
34
Goldsworthy JD. Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010.
35
Wicks E. The evolution of a constitution: eight key moments in British constitutional history. Oxford: Hart Pub 2006.
36
Rawlings R, Leyland P, Young AL, editors. Sovereignty and the law: domestic, European and international perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014.
37
MacCormick N. Beyond the Sovereign State. The Modern Law Review. 1993;56:1–18.
38
Craig PP. Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: an analytical framework. Public Law. 1997;467–87.
39
Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] EWHC KB J98 (02 November 1765).
40
M v Home Office [1993] UKHL 5 (27 July 1993).
41
Allan TRS. Questions of legality and legitimacy: Form and substance in British constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2011;9:155–62. doi: 10.1093/icon/mor017
42
Young AL. Rule of Law in the United Kingdom: Formal or Substantive, The. Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional Law 6 (Law Journal Library). 2012;6.
43
Allan TRS. Law, liberty, and justice: the legal foundations of British constitutionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1994.
44
Allan TRS. Constitutional justice: a liberal theory of the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.
45
Jowell J. Parliamentary sovereignty under the new constitutional hypothesis. Public Law. 2006;562–80.
46
Woolf, Lord. Droit public - English style. Public Law. 1995;57–71.
47
Sedley S. Human rights: a twenty-first century agenda. Public Law. 1995;386–400.
48
European Communities Act 1972.
49
R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame Ltd (Interim Relief Order) [1990] UKHL 7 (26 July 1990).
51
Craig P. Constitutionalising constitutional law: HS2. Public Law. 2014;373–92.
52
Elliott M. Constitutional Legislation, European Union Law and the Nature of the United Kingdom’s Contemporary Constitution. European Constitutional Law Review. 2014;10:379–92.
53
Craig, Paul. The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review. ;48:1915–44.
54
Peers S. European integration and the European Union Act 2011: an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Public Law. 2013;119–34.
55
Gordon M, Dougan M. The United Kingdom’s European Union Act 2011: ‘who won the bloody war anyway?’ European Law Review. 2012;37:3–30.
56
Wade HWR. What has happened to the sovereignty of Parliament? Law Quarterly Review. 1991;1–4.
57
House of Commons - The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty - European Scrutiny Committee.
58
House of Commons - The EU Bill: Restrictions on Treaties and Decisions relating to the EU - European Scrutiny Committee.
59
R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) (Appellants) v Ministry of Justice (Respondent), R (on the application of AM) (AP) (Respondent) v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 38.
60
Finnis J. A British ‘Convention right’ to assistance in suicide? Law Quarterly Review. 2015;131:1–8.
61
Draghici C. The blanket ban on assisted suicide: between moral paternalism and utilitarian justice. European Human Rights Law Review. 2015;286–97.
62
Wicks E. The Supreme Court Judgment in Nicklinson: One Step Forward on Assisted Dying; Two Steps Back on Human Rights: A Commentary on The Supreme Court Judgment in R (Nicklinson) V Ministry Of Justice; R (AM) V Director Of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 38. Medical Law Review. 2015;23:144–56. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwu031
63
Mullock A. The Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson: human rights, criminal wrongs and the dilemma of death. Professional Negligence. 2015;31:18–28.
64
Beaton R. The Boundaries of Proportionality Review and the End of Life. Judicial Review. 2014;19:135–9. doi: 10.5235/10854681.19.3.135
65
Kavanagh A. Defending deference in public law and constitutional theory. Law Quarterly Review. 2010;222–50.
66
Young AL. In Defence of Due Deference. Modern Law Review. 2009;72:554–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00757.x
67
Allan TRS. Judicial deference and judicial review: legal doctrine and legal theory. Law Quarterly Review. 2011;96–117.
68
Allan TRS. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of "Due Deference”. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2006;65:671–95. doi: 10.1017/S0008197306007264
69
Clayton R. Judicial deference and ‘democratic dialogue’: the legitimacy of judicial intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law. 2004;33–47.
70
Jowell J. Judicial deference: servility, civility or institutional capacity? Public Law. 2003;592–601.
71
Klug F. Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act 1998. European Human Rights Law Review. 2003;125–33.
72
Edwards RA. Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act. Modern Law Review. 2002;65:859–82. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.00413
73
Obergefell v. Hodges No. 14–556. 2014.
74
Wells CE. Obergefell v Hodges. European Human Rights Law Review. 2015;406–12.
75
Bellinger (FC) (Appellant) v. Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21.
76
Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 30.
77
Young AL. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: avoiding the deference trap. Public Law. 2005;23–34.
78
Kavanagh A. The Role of Parliamentary Intention in Adjudication under the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2006;26:179–206. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqi049
79
Young AL. Is dialogue working under the Human Rights Act 1998? Public Law. 2011;773–800.
80
Sales P, Ekins R. Rights-consistent interpretation and the Human Rights Act 1998. Law Quarterly Review. 2011;217–38.
81
MoJ. Commission on a Bill of Rights: The Choice Before Us.
82
Coservatives on Bill of Rights.
83
Gearty C. On fantasy island: British politics, English judges and the European Convention on Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review. 2015;1–8.
84
Human Rights Act Reform | UK Constitutional Law Association. http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/tag/human-rights-act-reform/
85
Klug F, Williams A. The choice before us? The report of the Commission on a Bill of Rights. Public Law. 2013;459–68.
86
Elliott M. A damp squib in the long grass: the report of the Commission on a Bill of Rights. European Human Rights Law Review. 2013;2:137–51.
87
Heydon JD. Are bills of rights necessary in common law systems? Law Quarterly Review. 2014;392–412.
88
Foster S. Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. Criminal Law & Justice Weekly. 2015;179.
89
Ewing KD. The futility of the Human Rights Act. Public Law. 2004;829–52.
90
Ewing KD, Tham J-C. The continuing futility of the Human Rights Act. Public Law. 2008;668–93.
91
Kavanagh A. Judging the judges under the Human Rights Act: deference, disillusionment and the ‘war on terror’. Public Law. 2009;287–304.
92
Lester A. The utility of the Human rights Act: a reply to Keith Ewing. Public Law. 2005;249–58.
93
Tomkins A. National security and the role of the court: a changed landscape? Law Quarterly Review. 2010;543–67.
94
McKeever D. The Human Rights Act and anti-terrorism in the UK: one great leap forward by Parliament, but are the courts able to slow the steady retreat that has followed? Public Law. 2010;110–39.
95
Gearty CA. Liberty and security. Cambridge, UK: Polity 2013.
96
Murkens JEK. The Quest for Constitutionalism in UK Public Law Discourse. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2009;29:427–55. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqp020
97
Gee G, Webber GCN. What Is a Political Constitution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2010;30:273–99. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqq013
98
Gyorfi T. Between Common Law Constitutionalism and Procedural Democracy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2013;33:317–38. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqt004
99
Poole T. Back to the Future? Unearthing the Theory of Common Law Constitutionalism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2003;23:435–54. doi: 10.1093/ojls/23.3.435
100
Himsworth CMG. Devolution and its Jurisdictional Asymmetries. Modern Law Review. 2007;70:31–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00625.x
101
McLean I, McMillan A. State of the union: Unionism and the alternatives in the United Kingdom since 1707. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.
102
Jones TH, Williams JM. Wales as a jurisdiction. Public Law. 2004;78–101.
103
Jones TH. Wales, Devolution and Sovereignty. Statute Law Review. 2012;33:151–62. doi: 10.1093/slr/hms023
104
McLean I, Peterson S. Transitional constitutionalism in the United Kingdom. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2014;3:1113–35.
105
Aroney N. Reserved matters, legislative purpose and the referendum on Scottish independence. Public Law. 2014;422–45.
106
Elliott M. The Proposed Scotland Bill: The Constitutional Implications of Draft Clauses 1 and 2. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published Online First: 2015. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2557451
107
Taylor RB. Foundational and regulatory conventions: exploring the constitutional significance of Britain’s dependency upon conventions. Public Law. 2015;614–32.
108
Parliamentary Research Paper 04/31.
109
Research Briefings - Individual ministerial accountability (2012).
110
Flinders M. The enduring centrality of individual ministerial responsibility within the British constitution. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 2000;6:73–92. doi: 10.1080/13572330008420632
111
Barendt E. Separation of powers and constitutional government. Public Law. 1995;599–619.
112
Barber NW. Prelude to the Separation of Powers. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2001;60:59–88. doi: 10.1017/S0008197301000629
113
White R. Separation of powers and legislative supremacy. Law Quarterly Review. 2011;456–74.
114
Stephenson S. The Supreme Court’s renewed interest in Autochthonous Constitutionalism. Public Law. Published Online First: 2015.
115
Bjorge E. Fundamental rights at English (and European?) common law. Law Quarterly Review. 2015;192–6.
116
Masterman R, Wheatle S. A Common law Resurgence in Rights Protection. European Human Rights Law Review. 2015;1:57–65.
117
Clayton R. The empire strikes back: common law rights and the Human Rights Act. Public Law. 2015;3–12.
118
Russell M. The contemporary House of Lords: Westminster bicameralism revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013.
119
Ballinger C. The House of Lords, 1911-2011: a century of non-reform. Oxford: Hart 2012.
120
Melton J, Stuart C, Helen D. To Codify or not to Codify?
121
Blick A. Codifying – or not codifying – the UK constitution: A Literature Review. 2011.
122
A New Magna Carta. 2014.
123
Walter J, Finey W, Walter W, et al. The times. Published Online First: 1788.
124
The guardian. Published Online First: 1980.
126
New statesman. Published Online First: 1996.
127
Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. Prospect: politics, essay, review.
128
Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. The spectator. Published Online First: 1994.
129
Public law. Published Online First: 1956.
131
William S. Hein & Company. The law quarterly review. Published Online First: 1885.
132
The Law quarterly review.
133
JSTOR (Organization), William S. Hein & Company. The modern law review. Published Online First: 1937.
134
The Modern law review.
135
Cambridge University Law Society, University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, et al. The Cambridge law journal. Published Online First: 1921.
136
The Cambridge law journal.
137
Oxford journal of legal studies.
138
Society of Public Teachers of Law (London, England). Legal studies: The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars.
139
Lee RG. Blackstone’s statutes on public law and human rights 2010-2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010.
140
Legislation.gov.uk. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga
141
British and Irish Legal Information Institute. http://www.bailii.org/
