Critically discuss the main provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. To what extent does this statute present a real challenge to the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy?

Three Questions-Answer essays
By
Name of the Class/Course
Professor
Name of Univesity
Date
Question one:
“The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English Constitution right to make or unmake any law; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament (A.V. Dicey,1888). Discuss the extent to which this remains an accurate statement.
This section explores the extent to which the statement by Dicey regarding parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty is considered true or not. The United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty has been a subject of debate. What is the extent of U.K parliamentary sovereignty? Can legislative sovereignty be challenged by other bodies or persons? These are critical questions that Dicey answered.
Discussions often deploy the works of Dicey to dissect relevant dichotomous and intertwining debates, such as parliamentary debates vs. the rule of law. The jurist A. V. Dicey’s study of the Law of the Constitution (1885) embodies the overarching analysis of the British constitution and the source of orthodoxy on themes including parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law (Kirby,2019, p.33). However, such canonical status obscures the originality of Dicey’s ideas in the history of legal and political thought. Still, Dicey appears to have successfully crafted the traditional idea of sovereignty into two separate concepts: legal and political sovereignty to square the common law aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament with the democratic notion of the citizens' sovereignty (Kirby,2019, p.33).
Dicey offered a traditional view to explain the notion of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. First, he argued that Parliament holds the right to making or unmaking laws whatsoever. Second, the Law of England recognizes no person or body holds the right to override or set aside the enactment passed by U.K Parliament. Finally, Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. Such elements of supremacy and sovereignty of parliaments are manifested in U.K parliament. International Law does not limit the legislative supremacy of Parliament, and U.K courts recognized that there are no territorial limits on the legislative competence of Parliament. International treaties do not limit the powers of Parliament. International Law only becomes part of the domestic system if incorporated by a national piece of legislation. The adoption and implementation of international legislation are acquired using persuasive or moral force instead of legal force. Wade's argument supports the existence of parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty, where he explained these concepts from multiple viewpoints. First, he argued that there is self-embracing sovereignty where Parliamentary authority includes the possibility to destroy its sovereignty.
Second, he talked about continuing sovereignty where Parliament cannot destroy its sovereignty and, therefore, it cannot entrench legislation. Finally, Wade considers parliamentary sovereignty as a secured and recognized concept in the U.K legal system, where he cites strong d...