Bibliography for LA201: General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law BETA

1.

Bradley AW, Ewing KD, Knight C. Constitutional and administrative law [Internet]. Sixteenth edition. Harlow, England: Pearson; 2014. Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb2741966

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 [Internet]. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com/browse/open.asp?id=238868&entityid=https://idp.warwick.ac.uk/idp/shibboleth

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 [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199576982.001.0001

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 [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670024.001.0001

15.

Tomkins, Adam. Public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

16.

Campbell T, Ewing KD, Tomkins A. Sceptical essays on human rights [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb2662633

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 [Internet]. 7th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com/browse/open.asp?id=329861&entityid=https://idp.warwick.ac.uk/idp/shibboleth

20.

Allan TRS. The sovereignty of law: freedom, constitution and common law [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685066.001.0001

21.

Kavanagh A. Constitutional review under the UK Human Rights Act [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. Available from: https://www.dawsonera.com/guard/protected/dawson.jsp?name=https://idp.warwick.ac.uk/idp/shibboleth&dest=http://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780511724374

22.

Young AL. Parliamentary sovereignty and the Human Rights Act [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2009. Available from: http://0-portal.igpublish.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iglibrary/search/HARTB0000473.html

23.

Hickman T, Craig PP. Public law after the Human Rights Act [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Pub; 2010. Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb2544638

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 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf

26.

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) (18 February 2002) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html

27.

Campbell D, Young J. The metric martyrs and the entrenchment jurisprudence of Lord Justice Laws. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2002;(Aut):399–406. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I79F6E3A1E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

28.

Barber NW. The afterlife of Parliamentary sovereignty. International Journal of Constitutional Law [Internet]. 2011;9(1):144–154. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/icon/mor023

29.

Young AL. Sovereignty: Demise, afterlife, or partial resurrection? International Journal of Constitutional Law [Internet]. 2011;9(1):163–171. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/icon/mor028

30.

Allan TRS. Parliamentary sovereignty: law, politics, and revolution. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 1997;(113(Jul)):443–452. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I79F70AB0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

31.

Gordon M. The conceptual foundations of parliamentary sovereignty: reconsidering Jennings and Wade. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2009;(Jul):519–543. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I3E10D5B1727E11DE8047B748D67C18CA

32.

Goldsworthy JD. The sovereignty of Parliament: history and philosophy [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon; 2001. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248087.001.0001

33.

Laws J. Law and democracy. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 1995;(Spr):72–93. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID390A520E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

34.

Goldsworthy JD. Parliamentary sovereignty: contemporary debates [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com/browse/open.asp?id=277078&entityid=https://idp.warwick.ac.uk/idp/shibboleth

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 [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684069.001.0001

37.

MacCormick N. Beyond the Sovereign State. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. 1993;56(1):1–18. Available from: http://0-www.jstor.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/stable/1096572

38.

Craig PP. Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: an analytical framework. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 1997;467–487. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID15274F0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

39.

Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] EWHC KB J98 (02 November 1765) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1765/J98.html

40.

M v Home Office [1993] UKHL 5 (27 July 1993) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/5.html

41.

Allan TRS. Questions of legality and legitimacy: Form and substance in British constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law [Internet]. 2011;9(1):155–162. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/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) [Internet]. Wien, Austria: Universität Wien; 2012;6(1995–5855). Available from: http://0-heinonline.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vioincl6&g_sent=1&collection=journals&id=259

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 [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267880.001.0001

45.

Jowell J. Parliamentary sovereignty under the new constitutional hypothesis. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2006;(Aut):562–580. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IF0D05E100D4A11DB9253D431BB978268

46.

Woolf, Lord. Droit public - English style. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 1995;(Spr):57–71. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID38EF770E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

47.

Sedley S. Human rights: a twenty-first century agenda. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 1995;(Aut):386–400. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID38FBAC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

48.

European Communities Act 1972 [Internet]. Statute Law Database; Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents

49.

R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame Ltd (Interim Relief Order) [1990] UKHL 7 (26 July 1990) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/7.html

50.

HS2 Alliance Case [Internet]. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0172_Judgment.pdf

51.

Craig P. Constitutionalising constitutional law: HS2. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2014;(Jul):373–392. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID5A13AB0F30B11E385A2E4EF39C65A9A

52.

Elliott M. Constitutional Legislation, European Union Law and the Nature of the United Kingdom’s Contemporary Constitution. European Constitutional Law Review [Internet]. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2014;10(3):379–392. Available from: http://0-search.proquest.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/docview/1648045830?accountid=14888

53.

Craig, Paul. The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 48(6):1915–1944. Available from: http://0-www.kluwerlawonline.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2011074

54.

Peers S. European integration and the European Union Act 2011: an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2013;(Jan):119–134. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IBA050BB03F0711E2990CBEA3BDA0BE6D

55.

Gordon M, Dougan M. The United Kingdom’s European Union Act 2011: ‘who won the bloody war anyway?’ European Law Review [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2012;37(1):3–30. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID13B043050A411E18A8AA01CC7CE21D9

56.

Wade HWR. What has happened to the sovereignty of Parliament? Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 1991;(107(Jan)):1–4. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ICD256D10E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

57.

House of Commons - The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty - European Scrutiny Committee [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/63302.htm

58.

House of Commons - The EU Bill: Restrictions on Treaties and Decisions relating to the EU - European Scrutiny Committee [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/682/68202.htm

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 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/uksc_2013_0235_judgment.pdf

60.

Finnis J. A British ‘Convention right’ to assistance in suicide? Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2015;131:1–8. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I34BAA2907BAE11E49BBC911AA7DF78F5

61.

Draghici C. The blanket ban on assisted suicide: between moral paternalism and utilitarian justice. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. 2015;(3):286–297. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I293F05E026F411E58A24809D3D7EB82F

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 [Internet]. 2015;23(1):144–156. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/medlaw/fwu031

63.

Mullock A. The Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson: human rights, criminal wrongs and the dilemma of death. Professional Negligence [Internet]. 2015;31(1):18–28. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I9DF4F830B51711E49F8488D430410EF0

64.

Beaton R. The Boundaries of Proportionality Review and the End of Life. Judicial Review [Internet]. 2014;19(3):135–139. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.5235/10854681.19.3.135

65.

Kavanagh A. Defending deference in public law and constitutional theory. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2010;(126(Apr)):222–250. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IF3B510D22E5211DFBE2FA967ED04D069

66.

Young AL. In Defence of Due Deference. Modern Law Review [Internet]. 2009;72(4):554–580. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00757.x

67.

Allan TRS. Judicial deference and judicial review: legal doctrine and legal theory. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2011;(127(Jan)):96–117. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I20DA9E6008C611E0A451F66F817AC0EE

68.

Allan TRS. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of "Due Deference”. The Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 2006;65(3):671–695. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1017/S0008197306007264

69.

Clayton R. Judicial deference and ‘democratic dialogue’: the legitimacy of judicial intervention under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2004;(Spr):33–47. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I84927EF0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

70.

Jowell J. Judicial deference: servility, civility or institutional capacity? Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2003;592–601. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I8487F7A0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

71.

Klug F. Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act 1998. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2003;(2):125–133. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I84A25D70E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

72.

Edwards RA. Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act. Modern Law Review [Internet]. 2002;65(6):859–882. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1111/1468-2230.00413

73.

Obergefell v. Hodges No. 14–556 [Internet]. Supreme Court of the United States; 2014. Available from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

74.

Wells CE. Obergefell v Hodges. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2015;(4):406–412. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I88B2E3B0411211E59CB8B97FD04D5F6C

75.

Bellinger (FC) (Appellant) v. Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030410/bellin-1.htm

76.

Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 30 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm

77.

Young AL. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: avoiding the deference trap. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2005;(Spr):23–34. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I8499AAE0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

78.

Kavanagh A. The Role of Parliamentary Intention in Adjudication under the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2006;26(1):179–206. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/ojls/gqi049

79.

Young AL. Is dialogue working under the Human Rights Act 1998? Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2011;773–800. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID7EAF690E23C11E080A9C399189E1576

80.

Sales P, Ekins R. Rights-consistent interpretation and the Human Rights Act 1998. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2011;(127(Apr)):217–238. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I7DFA62304E5611E0B91FA9F94CE59879

81.

MoJ. Commission on a Bill of Rights: The Choice Before Us [Internet]. IMB; Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130206065653/https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/cbr/uk-bill-rights-vol-1.pdf

82.

Coservatives on Bill of Rights [Internet]. Available from: https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20Files/human_rights.pdf

83.

Gearty C. On fantasy island: British politics, English judges and the European Convention on Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2015;(1):1–8. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IAD6D8CD0ADF811E4A8D6F1E3CD2AEA2E

84.

Human Rights Act Reform | UK Constitutional Law Association [Internet]. Available from: 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 [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2013;(Jul):459–468. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I00EDF7D0D7C911E29A79B66BE8E69D4B

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 [Internet]. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2013;2:137–151. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I4BCCF680A3E811E2A94CA75C16A20EA4

87.

Heydon JD. Are bills of rights necessary in common law systems? Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2014;(130(Jul)):392–412. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I7CAEEF40F31C11E3847EA720781C7CD8

88.

Foster S. Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. Criminal Law & Justice Weekly [Internet]. London: Lexis Nexis; 2015;179(46). Available from: http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5HK8-1J01-DYJF-G17K&csi=280390&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t

89.

Ewing KD. The futility of the Human Rights Act. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2004;(Win):829–852. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I84A8ED21E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

90.

Ewing KD, Tham JC. The continuing futility of the Human Rights Act. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2008;(Win):668–693. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I00EAB8B099A111DD9611E019A6BFBE26

91.

Kavanagh A. Judging the judges under the Human Rights Act: deference, disillusionment and the ‘war on terror’. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2009;(Apr):287–304. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IFC2512E1231F11DEBA18CA797BE6038F

92.

Lester A. The utility of the Human rights Act: a reply to Keith Ewing. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2005;(Sum):249–258. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I84A43231E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

93.

Tomkins A. National security and the role of the court: a changed landscape? Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2010;(126(Oct)):543–567. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I0756BA21C2CE11DFA880E34515B10C27

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 [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2010;(Jan):110–139. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I67F11560E15B11DE88C6C8FBE711743E

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 [Internet]. 2009;29(3):427–455. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/29/3/427/1533571?redirectedFrom=fulltext

97.

Gee G, Webber GCN. What Is a Political Constitution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2010;30(2):273–299. Available from: https://0-academic-oup-com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/ojls/article/30/2/273/1505202

98.

Gyorfi T. Between Common Law Constitutionalism and Procedural Democracy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2013;33(2):317–338. Available from: https://0-academic-oup-com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/ojls/article/33/2/317/1547137

99.

Poole T. Back to the Future? Unearthing the Theory of Common Law Constitutionalism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. 2003;23(3):435–454. Available from: https://0-academic-oup-com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/ojls/article/23/3/435/1585696

100.

Himsworth CMG. Devolution and its Jurisdictional Asymmetries. Modern Law Review [Internet]. 2007;70(1):31–58. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/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 [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Available from: http://0-dx.doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/0199258201.001.0001

102.

Jones TH, Williams JM. Wales as a jurisdiction. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2004;(Spr):78–101. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I847E33A0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A

103.

Jones TH. Wales, Devolution and Sovereignty. Statute Law Review [Internet]. 2012;33(2):151–162. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1093/slr/hms023

104.

McLean I, Peterson S. Transitional constitutionalism in the United Kingdom. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law [Internet]. 2014;3(4):1113–1135. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I6587228063DF11E58BD8DD30ADE7CC2B

105.

Aroney N. Reserved matters, legislative purpose and the referendum on Scottish independence. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2014;(Jul):422–445. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID5A24C20F30B11E385A2E4EF39C65A9A

106.

Elliott M. The Proposed Scotland Bill: The Constitutional Implications of Draft Clauses 1 and 2. SSRN Electronic Journal [Internet]. 2015; Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2557451

107.

Taylor RB. Foundational and regulatory conventions: exploring the constitutional significance of Britain’s dependency upon conventions. Public Law [Internet]. Sweet & Maxwell: London; 2015;614–632. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I3A36A2305C5611E58916B963212E7CCD

108.

Parliamentary Research Paper 04/31 [Internet]. Available from: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP04-31

109.

Research Briefings - Individual ministerial accountability (2012) [Internet]. Available from: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06467

110.

Flinders M. The enduring centrality of individual ministerial responsibility within the British constitution. The Journal of Legislative Studies [Internet]. 2000;6(3):73–92. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1080/13572330008420632

111.

Barendt E. Separation of powers and constitutional government. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 1995;(Win):599–619. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=ID3936440E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028

112.

Barber NW. Prelude to the Separation of Powers. The Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 2001;60(1):59–88. Available from: http://0-doi.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1017/S0008197301000629

113.

White R. Separation of powers and legislative supremacy. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2011;(127(Jul)):456–474. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I3C19CA009A2711E09D29F4D8A5F97F11

114.

Stephenson S. The Supreme Court’s renewed interest in Autochthonous Constitutionalism. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2015; Available from: https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad6ada60000016436a303cb1194d14a&docguid=I4508F36010F311E5B853A6F356F47180&hitguid=I4508F36010F311E5B853A6F356F47180&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=2&resolvein=true

115.

Bjorge E. Fundamental rights at English (and European?) common law. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. London: Stevens and Sons; 2015;(131(Apr)):192–196. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I9010B212C81111E4A0E9E7C45C1190E1

116.

Masterman R, Wheatle S shauna. A Common law Resurgence in Rights Protection. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. London: Sweet and Maxwell; 2015;1:57–65. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=IAD718470ADF811E4A8D6F1E3CD2AEA2E

117.

Clayton R. The empire strikes back: common law rights and the Human Rights Act. Public Law [Internet]. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals; 2015;(Jan):3–12. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/authentication/sso/athens?redirect=/maf/wluk/app/document?docguid=I28D78E607B4611E4A15DE99780331015

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? [Internet]. The Constitution Unit; Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/162.pdf

121.

Blick A. Codifying – or not codifying – the UK constitution: A Literature Review [Internet]. Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies  King’s College London; 2011. Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/56954/CPCS%20Literature%20Review%20(4).pdf

122.

A New Magna Carta [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/463.pdf

123.

Walter J, Finey W, Walter W, Walter J, Robinson HC, Stoddart J, Barnes T, Delane JT, Chenery T, Buckle GE, Dawson G, Casey WF, Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. The times. London [England]: R. Nutkins; 1788; Available from: http://0-infotrac.galegroup.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/itweb/warwick?db=TTDA

124.

The guardian. [Charlottetown]: Public Archives of P.E.I.; 1980; Available from: http://0-www.bpe.europresse.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/ip/intro.asp?user=WARWICKT_1

125.

The economist. London: [Economist Newspaper Ltd.]; Available from: http://0-search.proquest.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/publication/41716

126.

New statesman. London: New Statesman Ltd; 1996; Available from: http://0-www.bpe.europresse.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/ip/intro.asp?user=WARWICKT_1

127.

Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. Prospect: politics, essay, review. London: C. Seaford; Available from: http://0-global.factiva.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/en/sess/login.asp?XSID=S003sFo3sb90pFyMT7yMTEnNDUoOTUvMtmm5DFHY96oYqZlNFFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFB

128.

Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC. The spectator. Hamilton, Ont: Southam; 1994; Available from: http://0-global.factiva.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/en/sess/login.asp?XSID=S003sFo3sb90pFyMT7yMTEnNDUoOTUvMtmm5DFHY96oYqZlNFFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFB

129.

Public law. London, Stevens & Sons: Sweet & Maxwell; 1956; Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/wluk/app/external/path?ao=o.I66580770A29A11DB9A2D866D614A63ED&ndd=2&athens=true

130.

Public law. London: Sweet & Maxwell Stevens Journals;

131.

William S. Hein & Company. The law quarterly review. London: Stevens and Sons; 1885; Available from: http://0-heinonline.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/HOL/Index?index=journals/lqr&collection=journals

132.

The Law quarterly review. London: Stevens and Sons; Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1742833

133.

JSTOR (Organization), William S. Hein & Company. The modern law review. London, England: Stevens & Sons; 1937; Available from: http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2230

134.

The Modern law review. Oxford, UK: Published for the Modern Law Review Ltd. by Blackwell Publishers [etc.];

135.

Cambridge University Law Society, University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, William S. Hein & Company. The Cambridge law journal. London: Published by Stevens & Sons, for the Cambridge University Law Society; 1921; Available from: http://0-journals.cambridge.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/jid_Clj

136.

The Cambridge law journal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1737980

137.

Oxford journal of legal studies. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press; Available from: http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1743939

138.

Society of Public Teachers of Law (London, England). Legal studies: The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars. London: Butterworths for the Society of Public Teachers of Law;

139.

Lee RG. Blackstone’s statutes on public law and human rights 2010-2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

140.

Legislation.gov.uk [Internet]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga

141.

British and Irish Legal Information Institute [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/