📚 How Far Sovereignty Has Moved Between Different Branches of Government | 主权在政府各部门之间的转移程度
In the UK’s uncodified constitution, sovereignty traditionally rests with Parliament, yet the practical location of political power has shifted among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. This article evaluates how far sovereignty has moved between these branches, examining key developments such as the growth of prime ministerial power, judicial review, devolution, and Brexit. The extent to which these shifts represent a fundamental reallocation of sovereign authority — or merely a temporary adjustment within the existing parliamentary framework — remains deeply contested among constitutional scholars.
在英国的未成文宪法中，主权传统上归属于议会，但实际的政治权力已在行政、立法和司法部门之间发生了转移。本文评估主权在这些部门之间的转移程度，考察首相权力的增长、司法审查、权力下放以及脱欧等关键发展。这些转变在多大程度上代表主权权力的根本性重新分配，还是仅仅是在现有议会框架内的临时调整，宪法学者之间仍存在激烈争论。
1. Defining Sovereignty in the UK Context | 在英国语境中定义主权
Legal sovereignty refers to the supreme law-making authority within a state, which in the UK lies with the ‘Crown-in-Parliament’. Political sovereignty, by contrast, concerns where power effectively resides — often with the electorate or the government of the day. These two dimensions are essential for analysing how sovereignty has moved. While Dicey’s traditional view asserts that no person or body can override Parliament, the political reality often shows a dispersal of power among multiple actors. The distinction between legal and political sovereignty allows us to assess whether recent changes have merely shifted political influence or have fundamentally altered the constitutional order.
法律主权是指国家内部最高立法权威，在英国归属于“议会中的君主”。与之相对，政治主权关注的是权力实际上掌握在何处——通常是选民或当届政府。这两个维度对于分析主权的转移至关重要。尽管戴西的传统观点认为任何个人或机构都不能凌驾于议会之上，但政治现实往往显示权力在多个行为体之间分散。法律主权与政治主权的区分使我们能够评估近期的变化仅仅改变了政治影响力，还是从根本上改变了宪法秩序。
2. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the Westminster Model | 威斯敏斯特模式下的议会主权
The classical doctrine holds that Parliament is the ultimate legal authority — it can make or unmake any law, and no Parliament can bind its successors. This principle was famously articulated by A.V. Dicey and remains the bedrock of the UK constitution. In this model, the executive and judiciary are subordinate: ministers are accountable to Parliament, and courts cannot strike down primary legislation. However, even in its purest form, political sovereignty rested with the electorate during general elections, creating a dualism that could later be exploited by reforming governments. The doctrine’s apparent simplicity hides the complex reality of modern governance, where power rarely resides in a single location for long.
古典理论认为，议会是最高法律权威——它可以制定或废除任何法律，且一届议会不能约束其后继者。这一原则由戴西著名地阐述，并仍然是英国宪法的基石。在这一模式下，行政和司法部门从属于议会：大臣们对议会负责，法院不能推翻初级立法。然而，即使在最纯粹的形式下，政治主权在普选期间归属于选民，这创造了一种二元性，后来的改革政府可以利用这一点。该理论的表面简洁性掩盖了现代治理的复杂现实，权力很少长期停留在单一位置。
3. The Rise of the Executive: Prime Ministerial Government | 行政部门的崛起：首相制政府
Over the twentieth century, power drained from the legislature towards the executive, especially the prime minister. The doctrine of the mandate, whipped party discipline, and the control of parliamentary time have enabled governments to largely dominate the Commons. Critics argue that we have moved from cabinet government to prime ministerial government, where a premier with a large majority can act almost unchecked between elections. This shift represents a major movement of effective political sovereignty — though legal sovereignty remains with Parliament, the executive often legislates through secondary instruments and statutory powers, reducing backbench influence. The growth of special advisers and the PM’s policy unit has further centralized decision-making away from both departments and Parliament.
二十世纪期间，权力从立法机构向行政机构特别是首相流失。授权理论、党鞭党纪以及对议会时间的控制使得政府能够在很大程度上主导下议院。批评者认为我们已经从内阁制政府转向首相制政府，一个拥有稳定多数的首相可以在两次大选之间几乎不受约束地行事。这种转变代表了实际政治主权的重大转移——尽管法律主权仍属议会，行政机关经常通过二级立法和法定权力进行立法，削弱了后座议员的影响力。特别顾问和首相政策小组的扩张进一步将决策权从各部门和议会集中到中心。
4. Judicial Power and the Expansion of Judicial Review | 司法权与司法审查的扩张
A significant movement of sovereignty occurred with the growth of judicial authority, particularly after the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Courts gained the power to issue declarations of incompatibility under the HRA, and the new Supreme Court became visibly independent from the legislature. Judicial review of executive actions has expanded, allowing judges to quash ministerial decisions on rationality and proportionality grounds. Although courts still cannot strike down primary legislation, their interpretative function under section 3 of the HRA effectively compels Parliament to confront rights-based challenges. Some argue this has created a “judicialization” of politics, transferring a measure of sovereign control from the elected branches to unelected judges.
随着司法权力的增长，特别是1998年《人权法案》和2005年《宪政改革法案》之后，主权发生了一次重大转移。法院获得了根据《人权法案》发出不一致声明的权力，新的最高法院显著地独立于立法机构。对行政行为的司法审查已扩大，允许法官基于合理性和相称性理由推翻部长决定。虽然法院仍不能废除初级立法，但其在《人权法案》第3条下的解释功能实际上迫使议会直面基于权利的挑战。一些人认为这造成了政治的“司法化”，将一定程度的最高控制权从民选部门转移到了未经选举的法官手中。
5. Devolution and the Territorial Dispersion of Sovereignty | 权力下放与主权的地域分散
The creation of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, and Northern Ireland Assembly after 1998 established a quasi-federal dynamic, moving significant legislative and political sovereignty away from Westminster. These bodies now exercise primary law-making powers over health, education, and transport while the UK Parliament retains paramount legal sovereignty in theory. The Sewel Convention requires Westminster not to normally legislate on devolved matters without consent, yet this convention was tested in the Brexit process. Devolution has undoubtedly diluted the practical monopoly of centralised sovereignty, though the Supreme Court in Miller I confirmed that the devolved legislatures are legally subordinate. Political reality, however, suggests a permanent shift in how sovereign power is understood and exercised across the UK.
1998年后苏格兰议会、威尔士议会和北爱尔兰议会的建立，形成了一种准联邦态势，将重要的立法和政治主权从威斯敏斯特转移出去。这些机构现在在卫生、教育和交通等领域行使初级立法权，而英国议会在理论上保留了最高法律主权。塞维尔惯例要求威斯敏斯特未经同意通常不得就下放事务立法，但这一惯例在脱欧过程中受到了考验。权力下放无疑稀释了中央集权主权的实际垄断，尽管最高法院在米勒一号案中确认下放立法机构在法律上是从属的。但政治现实表明，对整个联合王国如何理解和行使最高权力，已发生永久性转变。
6. EU Membership and Its Withdrawal: A Sovereignty Pendulum | 欧盟成员资格与脱欧：主权钟摆
Membership of the European Union from 1973 involved a profound pooling of sovereignty. The European Communities Act 1972 gave direct effect to EU law in the UK, and the Court of Justice’s supremacy challenged the classic Diceyan model. Sovereignty had thus shifted upwards to supranational institutions. Brexit, triggered by the 2016 referendum and the subsequent EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, was designed to “take back control” and repatriate legal sovereignty fully to Westminster. Yet the process revealed tensions between popular sovereignty expressed in the referendum and parliamentary sovereignty exercised by MPs. The Miller II judgment reinforced that major constitutional changes must be authorised by Parliament, confirming that legal sovereignty never truly left Westminster, even if political sovereignty was constrained.
1973年起的欧盟成员资格涉及主权的深刻汇集。1972年《欧洲共同体法案》使欧盟法律在英国具有直接效力，欧洲法院的最高权威挑战了经典的戴西模式。主权因此向上转移到了超国家机构。由2016年公投和随后的《欧盟（退出）法案》2018年触发的脱欧，旨在“夺回控制权”并将法律主权完全归还给威斯敏斯特。然而，这一过程揭示了公投表达的民选主权与议员行使的议会主权之间的紧张关系。米勒二号判决强化了重大宪法变更必须由议会授权，确认法律主权从未真正离开威斯敏斯特，即便政治主权受到了限制。
7. The Rise of Popular Sovereignty and Referendums | 人民主权与公投的兴起
Referendums have introduced a new site of sovereign power — the people directly. The 2016 EU referendum established a precedent that on fundamental constitutional questions, the electorate’s voice carries a higher democratic legitimacy than Parliament’s representative function. In political terms, the sovereignty of the people now rivals the sovereignty of Parliament, creating a dualist constitution. However, legally, referendums remain advisory unless Parliament makes them binding. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miller I illustrated that the result of a consultative referendum cannot override the statutory requirement for parliamentary approval. This suggests that despite the rhetorical assertion of popular sovereignty, ultimate legal authority remains with Parliament, though political constraints make ignoring a referendum result highly difficult.
公投引入了一个新的主权权力场所——人民直接行使的权力。2016年脱欧公投开创了一个先例，即在根本性宪法问题上，选民的意愿比议会的代表功能拥有更高的民主合法性。在政治层面上，人民的主权如今与议会的主权相抗衡，形成了一种二元宪法。但法律上，公投仍是咨询性的，除非议会将其设为具有约束力。最高法院在米勒一号中的裁决表明，咨询性公投的结果不能超越要求议会批准的制定法规定。这表明尽管有人民主权的言论宣称，最终的法律权威仍属议会，只是政治约束使得无视公投结果极为困难。
8. The Impact of Constitutional Statutes and Common Law Limits | 宪法性制定法及普通法限制的影响
Judges have increasingly recognized a special class of “constitutional statutes”, such as the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act, which cannot be repealed by casual or ambiguous words. This shifts some interpretative sovereignty to the judiciary, protecting core constitutional arrangements from implied repeal. In the Jackson hunting case, Lord Hope suggested that the rule of law now operates as a limit on parliamentary sovereignty, a view that drew sharp criticism from orthodox Diceyians. While Parliament can still explicitly repeal any law, the emergence of common law limits suggests a slow but noticeable migration of authority from the legislative branch to the courts, as guardians of fundamental constitutional values.
法官们越来越认可一种特殊的“宪法性制定法”，例如1998年《苏格兰法案》和《人权法案》，这些法律不能通过随意或模糊的措辞被废除。这把部分解释性主权转移给了司法部门，保护核心宪法安排不被默示废除。在杰克逊狩猎案中，霍普勋爵提出法治现在构成对议会主权的一种限制，这一观点遭到了正统戴西主义者的尖锐批评。尽管议会仍然可以明确废除任何法律，普通法限制的出现表明权威从立法机构向法院的慢性但可察觉的迁移，法院成为了基本宪法价值的守护者。
9. Balancing Factors: The Persistence of Parliamentary Supremacy | 平衡因素：议会至上原则的持续
Despite these movements, the cardinal principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains remarkably resilient. Any statute can still expressly repeal earlier acts; courts remain bound by the enrolled bill rule; and ministers are still politically accountable to the Commons. The Brexit process demonstrated that while referendums and devolved bodies exert enormous political influence, the final decision on leaving the EU was enacted by Parliament. Similarly, ministerial decisions can be overturned by legislation, and no court can directly annul a public act. The framework remains one of a unitary state with a sovereign parliament, though heavily embedded in a network of political constraints that dilute its formal omnipotence.
尽管存在这些转移，议会至上的首要原则仍然具有惊人的韧性。任何制定法仍可明确废除之前的法律；法院仍受已注册法案规则的约束；大臣在政治上仍向下议院负责。脱欧进程表明，尽管公投和下放机构施加了巨大的政治影响，离开欧盟的最终决定是由议会颁布实施的。同样，部长决定可被立法推翻，法院不能直接废除一项公共法案。该框架仍然是一个议会主权的单一制国家，尽管深陷于一系列政治约束网络之中，稀释了其形式上的全能性。
10. Conclusion: A Relocated but Not Replaced Sovereignty | 结论：主权重置但未被取代
Assessing how far sovereignty has moved requires acknowledging a multilayered picture. The executive has accumulated immense practical power, judges have carved out protective constitutional roles, devolution has fractured the territorial monopoly, and referendums have injected a populist dimension. Yet, at the final legal stage, the Westminster Parliament can reassert its supremacy — as it did by authorising Brexit and overriding the Sewel Convention. The movement is therefore substantial in political terms but largely reversible in legal terms. This suggests a constitution in flux, where sovereignty is increasingly contested, but the ultimate location of legal sovereignty has not abandoned the Crown-in-Parliament. The true change lies in the growing gap between law and political reality, a gap that challenges students of politics to rethink the nature of sovereign power itself.
评估主权转移的程度需要承认一个多层次的图景。行政部门积累了巨大的实际权力，法官开辟了保护性宪法角色，权力下放打碎了地域垄断，公投注入了民粹主义维度。然而，在最终的法律阶段，威斯敏斯特议会可以重申其最高地位——正如其授权脱欧并凌驾于塞维尔惯例之上那样。因此，这种转移在政治层面是实质性的，但在法律层面很大程度上是可逆的。这表明宪法正处于变动之中，主权越来越受到争辩，但最终法律主权的所在并未离开议会中的君主。真正的变化在于法律与政治现实之间日益扩大的鸿沟，这一鸿沟挑战着政治学的学生重新思考主权权力的本质。
Published by TutorHao | Government and Politics Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导