Supremacy and hegemony
A reply to Palmer and Martin
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11653000 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Allan (0000-0001-6534-9922, TC Bierne School of Law The University of Queensland Forgan Smith Building, St Lucia Campus Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia), David Campbell (0000-0003-0525-8150, Lancaster University Law School Lancaster University Lancaster LA4 1YN England, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 120-124 |
| Publication date | 2021-02-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Law and Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0263-323X • E-ISSN: 1467-6478 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jols.12281 |
| OpenAlex | W3130593114 |
| Language | EN |
In a 2019 article in this journal, which drew on previous work, we argued by examination of a number of extremely important cases that the senior judiciary is in the process of attempting to create judicial supremacy in the UK. It is doing so, not by democratic debate, but by legal procedural innovation incomprehensible to the electorate. Invited by the journal to reply to a criticism of our argument by Dr Stephanie Palmer and Dr Stevie Martin, we have sought to defend our account of the undemocratic procedural novelty of those cases
Argument (complex analysis · Criticism · Democracy · Hegemony · Novelty · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Theology · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |