Importance of interdisciplinary approach

Importance of interdisciplinary approach 1. Interdisciplinary Approach in IR This paper will analyze the importance of interdisciplinary approach in IR. The complexity of international relations has made it necessary to promote interdisciplinary approach and question the relevance of positivistic science while introducing a set of parameters not previously considered (regimes, social and cultural factors and actors, non-state entities) In my view due to the absence of interdisciplinary approach in IR, theorists were failed to predict major events in history such as the End of Cold War. Methodologies of various international theories did not help in predicting the end of cold war. The third debate between positivist and post positivist give rise the importance of interdisciplinary approach to better understand the world around us. The third debate widened the epistemology of IR. And it allows for more complex understanding on international system. The emergence of transnationals and globalization and its impact on states introduced interdisciplinary approach in IR. Globalization and the interdependency between economics and politics best describes the interdisciplinary nature of international relations. Although politics and economics have been studied separately for analytic purposes and as academic disciplines, and although each has its own paradigms, theories, and methodologies, it has long been recognized that e conomic factors shape political decisions, just as political factors may have a decisive influence on economic choices The realists, the famous school of international relations depict on the assumption that the state system is anarchic, realism depicts a world characterized by security competition and war (Mearshiemer 2002, 93). They also believe that it is possible to create a scientific base, and therefore, they try to be prudent. Critical theorist Cox (1981) questioned the emergence of existing world. The emergence of existing norms and institutions and how it can be changed. All these theories failed to describe scientifically from where state priorities come from and the reason for their change. These approaches have failed to understand or predict major changes in international relations or politics. However, I argue that constructivist scholars to some extent have followed the interdisciplinary approach in IR, such as Fearon and Wendt (2002) tried to bridge a gap between constructivism and rationalism. According to them ontological differences between rationalism and constructivist should be ignored in the study of International Relations. Fearon and Wendt said that there are two areas of convergence that are not taken into account. Both the two theories mostly give parallel, or at least harmonizing, description of international politics, as they are focusing on the same reality. Moreover, even they asks different questions, there are evidences that , other school answer s the question which is asked by opposite school. Therefore I argue that interdisciplinary approach is essential to understand the changing nature and priorities of states. Interdisciplinary approach can help international relations theorists to reach an understanding over the methodology of international relations. Thus, the Interdisciplinary approach can be used to bridge the gap between rationalist and constructivist, and define the systematic changes of international relations. In recent years, I believe that, constructivists have spent time in researching exploring meta-theoretical and ontological similarities between rational and constructivist approaches, therefore constructivist have tried to establish interdisciplinary approach. 2. Comparison Between Constructivist and Rationalist Constructivist and rationalist theories of International Relations often generate opposing propositions and both schools provide empirical evidence to support their claim. However, in this paper I argue that IR scholars should not reject one theory for another. There is a scope in both the theories for bridging the gap. Constructivism, according to Fearon and Wendt 2002 there are no measureable differences between these two approaches. In the first part of the paper I will focus on their differences and later I will argue these differences can be bridged as mentioned by Fearon and Wendt (2002) The visible gap between these two approaches is over ontology, specifically related to the role of international agents and actors. Therefore it can be said that the major difference is on ontological assumptions. Constructivism adds a social dimension that is missing from rationalist approaches. What is rational is seen as a function of legitimacy, defined by shared values and norms within institutions or other social structures rather than purely individual interests. Constructivist stress on a social ontology. Social Constructivism, their ontology gives attention to both social and material realities. Constructivist epistemology gives importance to qualitative and interpretative of seeking evidence. Constructivist focuses more on how structures and agents correlate with each other. Constructivism presents a social dimension which is absent in rationalist theories. Constructivist does not view international relations as a struggle for power. In contrast they emphasize more on the relevance of norms and identities in international relations. Constructivists believe that norms established over a period of time thus, they are deep rooted in international system. In contrast Rationalism believes on individualist ontology they believe on materialism and rigid facts, for rationalist norms, ideas, social element of international relations have no or less value. Similarly rationalist epistemology mainly focuses on the role of actors. Thus, for them state is the most important unit. Thus, they both view international system differently constructivist focus on social dimension and rationalist focus on material dimension of international system. Another major difference between these two theories is in empirical terms as a difference about the emerging issues in the world. However Fearon and Wendt (2002) argue that it is not a significant difference .I will discuss this in the later part of the paper. According to Wendt constructivists proclaims that agents are not an independent actors but they work in relation with social settings. Thus, state interests are not independent variables but they came into being as a result of social settings in which state exists, and thus they are endogenous to states. Another disagreement between rationalist and constructivist is over the role of ideas, both school of thoughts believe that ideas matter but differ on their importance and relevance in international relations. For Rationalists there is a difference between ideas and aspirations. Constructivist treats their descriptive role of ideas in more causal terms than constitutive terms. For Constructivist ideas and norms matter and the importance of ideas and norms cannot be overlooked. For realist ideas are matter but they view them in relation with distribution of power. Their comparison is interesting because they view society from different lenses rationalism through bottom-up and rationalism through top-down approach. However, Fearon and Wendt argue that the differences between these two schools can be bridged. Both the schools are concerned about same issues though they view these issues differently such as theory of war and peace (Wendt), role of internationals norms (Checkel T). Nevertheless, Fearon and Wendt argue that there are areas of possible junction that are inadequately addressed. Therefore, we can say that these schools are researching the same deep rooted realities. Fearon and Wendt further believe that both schools sometimes answers the questions that is asked by another school such as agent and structure question. Other theorists also echoed the same proposition as Fearon and Wendt. Adler (1998) mentioned that taking the middle ground is the base to the constructivist development. Guzzini (2000) argues that constructivisms achievement is somewhat based on its hypothetical place in the middle ground. Constructivist theories does not offer new research areas, but often rationalist and constructivist inquire into the same empirical dimensions as rationalist approaches openly categorize interactions as bargaining procedure. During interactions, actors use their power positions to the bargaining power of other actors to achieve maximizes their interests. Constructivist approaches believe that interactions are done through exchange of arguments. Challenges to Constructivist. There is a criticism on constructivist that they have a tendency to choose a single, descriptive logic of social action and they apply it to all social settings. It is a challenge for constructivist to define the boundaries as critics ask that whether constructivism is a theory of international relations or as a theory of philosophy, or it should be regarded as a bridge building theory between different approaches. Challenges to Rationalist Sindal (2001) argued that the intellectual, data collection, and methodological challenges of linking constructivism and rationalism, more recently an important set of critique grouped loosely under constructivist emphasize certain problems and set aside other issues by assumptions. Rational choice found deficient in explaining who the key actors are, in explaining their interest, origin and or in explaining how these change. The second challenge according to Sindal, that rational approach is not offering anything new, instead they tells us what we already aware of. The third challenge is that rationalist techniques are (Sindal 2001, 73) falsely triumphed over substance The fourth challenge is their weakness in empirical terms; their theories are not tested on strong empirical grounds.(Sindal 2001) The fifth challenge for rationalist is that they give importance to some issues, while leave others issues over assumptions. (Sindal 2001). The last challenge for rationalist is that, rationalist to some extent failed in pointing out major actors of IR, their interests and their origin and how these major actors changes. Role of IOs and Constructivist and Rationalist Perception Traditional international relations international relations (IR) theories such, realist,, rationalist and neo-functionalist theorists, such as realists, neo-functionalists or regime theorists, consider international organizations (IOs) as secondary tools with which to accomplish state goals. Therefore, traditional IR theorists give attention mostly towards the establishment of an IO and inter-state collaboration. As a result, I argue that previously filed of IOs was an under-studied field of IR. Constructivist approaches (Barnett and Finnemore 1999; Coleman and Barnett 2004; Alter 2004) overcome this problem; Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore counter traditional theory and provide a base for evaluating IOs as parttially independent actors. Barnett and Finnemore argue that IO is a powerful actor and In particular, they argue that IOs have significant autonomy and they gain their power through different ways not necessarily form the limited resources given to them by. Therefore I believe that their analysis regarding IO, acquires an important position in international relations theory. I argue that their analysis helps us in studying role of IOs in International Relations. IOs have gained much importance in IR. Therefore their analysis of the failure of IOs is also important. However, apart from their strengths in studying IOs their weakness lies in the fact that their primary focus is on IOs and they ignore the role of states in influencing IOs. Therefore, after analyzing the weakness and strength of constructivist and rationalist, I argue that middle-ground approach between rationalist and constructivist might help in better understanding the role of IOs and the influence of states on IOs. The bridge-building effort, as Alexander Wendt (2001) suggested, add greater amount of depth to each perspective. In the first part of this paper, I will discuss the similarities and dissimilarities between Constructivist and Rationalist. Barnett and Finnemore (1999) argued that rationalist theories view IO, staff as egoistic and self centered individuals who want to maximize their interest and hidden goals. Therefore, Finnemore argues that Rationalist and neo liberal institutionalist ignore the role of IOs and give attention to states only. Therefore, rationalist does not view IOs as independent actors whose interests are shaped by outside environment in which the exists. There are very few rationalist scholars who understand the importance of IO-state relationship (Milner, 1997). Therefore according to Checkel (1998) rationalist view does not provide a deeper analysis the possibility that the effects of institutions reach deeper, to the level of interests and identity (Checkel 1998). Therefore it can be said that constructivist theorists gives a more clear picture of IOs their interest, capabilities, organizational structure and its social implications on world. Constructivist and rationalist, both agree that the aim of IO staff is to survive but constructivist view survival not in terms of advancing their own interests but the interest and mandate of IOs. According to Coleman and Barnett (2004) the aim is to produce suitable policies through the adaptation of existing rules and new tasks, thus it gives IOs more space to be more capable and effective in their mandate. Therefore it is clear that constructivist focus on social context, however this point of view is unable to point out the circumstances under which IO staff realize their individual preferences. This paper merges rationalist and constructivist approaches to discover the conditions that enable IO officials to exercise their power. Therefore, in this paper I tried to show that constructivist describes the reasons of IO preferences; on the other hand rationalist describes the power of IOs to achieve their preferences. Therefore, I believe that realist and neo-liberalist did not offer complete set of reasons behind IO actions. The cooperation among states may foster as a result of norms being established in these institutions. Constructivist approach deals with these issues like preference formation but it is unclear on some aspects of social context. Therefore I argue that both constructivist and rationalist approach should fused together in order to better understand IO dependence and independence. 3. Philosophy of Science and International Relations The debate is still going on the status of international relations that whether it is a science or not. The debate has divided international relation scholars into two camps. The question whether IR is a science or not is still unresolved as scholars are not sure that the basis of IR is scientific. However many attempts have been by made by scholars establish IR as a science. In this article I will argue that scholars should continue their debate on the utility of Philosophy of Social Science in international politics or IR. As debate is always healthy and give rise to various theories that can better help in understanding the role of POS in IR or politics. Scholars and theorists should focus on what changes philosophy of science can offer by incorporating it in the field of international relations. Indeed IR scholars have tried to bridge a gap between science and IR to build the sound foundation of IR. I argue that building of solid foundation of IR on scientific basis is necessary to prove that IR theories can be tested scientifically. Scientific foundation of IR is necessary to show the validity of IR theories in real world. However, scholars who were inclined towards scientific foundation of IR have divided theories of IR into two categories positivist and post-positivist. Positivist theories have their foundations in the methods of the natural sciences by focusing on the impact of material forces. Positivist focus in international relations is on areas such as state relations, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. The positivist scholar Kenneth Waltz (1979) have argued that instrumentalism is an attempt to make IR more scientific and that he has found a more solid social scientific base for realist. He However, in present era the most prominent advocates of philosophy of social science are Colin Wight and Alexander Wendt. Both of them belongs to post-positivist camp and have tried to build a foundation of IR on philosophy of Social science that is acceptable to other camps such as positivist. However, the debate between positivist and post-positivist has not yielded any result so far thus; it is still unclear what should be the relation of science with IR. The first attempts were made by behaviouralist to make IR more scientific as Wight argues that before behaviouralist, scholars were not concerned about the relationship of science with IR. Behaviorist argued that there should be systematic study of IR based on evidence; therefore they reject the traditional historical theories of IR. In supporting the case for the scientific study of international relations, Alexander Wendts model of scientific realism conserved many residue of the positivist model of science.Wendt established a middle way between the positivist and post-positivist struggle. Scientific Realism therefore has tried to protect both positivist and anti-positivist theories in opposition to the efforts made by foundationalist to leave them out. It thus tries to create a room for a sort of inter-disciplinary dialogue in the discipline; they tried to make this debate as problem solving. Arguably there are, which is why constructivism has been contentious among philosophers of social science. The first thing that can be noted is that because of its focus on analysis of inter-subjective normative frameworks, a strong emphasis emerges among (especially moderate) social constructivists on tracing the contours of existing normative consensus in society, or in social sciences. To conclude, I would like to say that scholars should make an effort to understand POS in relation with Politics and IR, which I think now badly understood. Therefore as I mentioned earlier that debate should not be closed and we should not discard POS as BS but we should continue the debate to understand complexities of POS in order to better understand IR. And to answer the question why should we study POS and continue the debate of POS and its relationship with IR is that POS lies in the foundation of IR, I believe that without understanding POS we cannot understand dynamics of International politics or IR. References Adler, Emanuel. 2002. Constructivism and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 5 24 pages Bevir, Mark and R. Rhodes. 2002. Interpretive Theory. In David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, Editors. Theory and Methods in Political Science. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan Pages 131-52 21 pages Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2007. Constructivism and EU Politics. In Knud Erik Joergensen, Mark Pollack, Ben Rosamond, Editors. Handbook of European Union Politics. London: Sage Publications 30 pages Cox, Robert. 1986. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In Robert Keohane, Editor. Neorealism and Its Critics. NY: Columbia University Press Chapter 8 50 pages Fearon, James and Alexander Wendt. 2002. Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 3 21 pages Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Chapter 1 25 pages George, Alexander. 1974. Theory for Policy in International Relations. In Alexander George. Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. NY: Columbia University Press Appendix 26 pages Gourevitch, Peter. 2002. Domestic Politics and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 16 19 pages Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Chapters 1, 6 76 pages Jackson, Robert and Georg SÃ ¸rensen. 2003. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Chapters 8, 9 40 pages Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press Chapters 1, 6 37 pages Marsh, David and Paul Furlong. 2002. A Skin not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. In David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, Editors. Theory and Methods in Political Science. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan Pages 17-41 25 pages Matthew, Richard and Mark Zacher. 1995. Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands. In Charles Kegley, Editor. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. NY: St. Martins Press Chapter 5 43 pages Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. NY: W.W. Norton Chapter 2 26 pages Risse, Thomas, Stephen Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, Editors. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chapter 1 38 pages Schmidt, Brian. 2002. On the History and Historiography of International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 1 19 pages Smith, Steve. 1996. Positivism and Beyond. In Ken Booth, Steve Smith and Marysia Zalewski, Editors. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chapter 1 36 pages Snidal, Duncan. 2002. Rational Choice and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 4 22 pages Tickner, J. Ann. 2002. Feminist Perspectives on International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 14 16 pages Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Chapters 1, 2 82 pages Waltz, Kenneth. 1986. Laws and Theories. In Robert Keohane, Editor. Neorealism and Its Critics. NY: Columbia University Press Chapter 2 19 pages Wight, Colin. 2002. Philosophy of Science and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth Simmons, Editors. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications Chapter 2 29 pages

Mussolini and Hitler Essay -- essays research papers

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler As World War II (WWII) approached, Mussolini announced his intention of annexing Malta, Corsica, and Tunis. He spoke of creating a "New Roman Empire" that would stretch east to Palestine and south through Libya and Egypt to Kenya. In April 1939, after a brief war, he annexed Albania, a campaign which strained his military. His armed forces are generally considered to have been unprepared for combat when the German invasion of Poland led to World War II. Mussolini thus decided to remain 'non-belligerent' until he was quite certain which side would win. On June 10, 1940, as the Germans under General Guderian reached the English Channel, Mussolini declared war on Britain and France. In October, Italy attacked Greece and lost in result 1/3 of Albania, until Germany attacked Greece as well. In June 1941, he declared war on the Soviet Union and in December he declared war on the United States. Following Italian defeats on all fronts and the Anglo-American landing in Sicily in 1943, most of Mussolini's colleagues (Count Galeazzo Ciano, the foreign minister and also Mussolini's son-in-law, included) turned against him at a meeting of the Fascist Grand Council on July 25, 1943. King Vittorio Emanuele III called Mussolini to his palace and stripped the dictator of his power. Upon leaving the palace, Mussolini was swiftly arrested. He was then sent to Gran Sasso, a mountain recovery in central Italy (Abruzzo), in complete isolation. Mussolini was subst...

Examination Of The Wonthaggi Desalination Plant Environmental Sciences Essay

Desalination is a procedure of taking extra salts and minerals from saltwater to do it suited for human ingestion. Counties in the Middle East and the Mediterranean have been utilizing desalinization for a long clip to fulfill their H2O demands and it is going progressively popular in states like the United States, Australia and Europe as demand for H2O continues to turn with turning population and diminishing precipitation forms ( David A. Roberts, 2010 ) . Wonthaggi desalinization works is a large budget desalinization works presently under building on a clear farming area on the Bass Coast. The site for the desalinization works is about five 100 metres inland from the coastline. The Desalination Project Team, which is moving as advocate on behalf of the State is a portion of the Capital Projects Division. This undertaking is a Public-Private Partnership and Project ‘s substructure includes an belowground saltwater intake tunnel that will run from the works to an offshore loc ation on the seafloor, an belowground mercantile establishment tunnel that will run from the works to an offshore location on the seafloor and discharge seawater dressed ore, and an belowground transportation grapevine for the fresh water that will be produced and a power supply ( Victoria, 2008 ) . The desalinization works will supply upto150 gigalitres of H2O per twelvemonth which can be increased to 200 gigalitres per twelvemonth in the hereafter. An estimated 480 litres of saltwater will be pumped in and 280 billion litres of saline concentration or seawater will be pumped back out into the ocean every twelvemonth ( 2009 ) . The works will be utilizing energy signifier brown coal which will breathe one million metric tons of C dioxide every twelvemonth. There is besides wind farm that is proposed to be built 100s of kilometres off as an beginning ( Heislers ) . This works, which is traveling to be Victoria ‘s largest substructure undertaking of all time, is expected to be completed by the terminal of 2011. Marine Impact of Desalination Plant: The desalinization works may be able to supply some alleviation for Victoria ‘s H2O deficit crisis, but it will hold many long term and possibly even irreversible Marine, costal and environmental impacts. For the intent of this essay, we will merely see Marine and coastal impacts. The works is being built behind a foreshore modesty and a dune system and building and operation of the desalinization works will hold many negative impacts on the environing country ( Heislers ) . Construction: Construction will do a batch of harm on land and seabed when sand, clay and other seabed home grounds will be disrupted during boring and puting grapevines ( Smyth, 2007 ) . Operation: Marine life loss- Once the works is to the full operational, it is estimated that about 40 metric tons of sea life will turn up dead every twenty-four hours when molluscs, weed, larvae, algae, fish/fish eggs, plankton will be sucked in through the pipes near the consumption countries and larger mari0ne animate beings will be trapped by the screens around the consumption countries ( Heislers ) . A survey on desalinization workss conducted in the United States revealed that around 55,000 invertebrates and 78,000 fish died each twelvemonth after acquiring stuck on the screens near the intake country. Whereas, other smaller animals died after being sucked up by the pipes. It is rather good cognize how the remotion of one key species can interrupt the nutrient concatenation and consequence in species loss. Loss of these marine animate beings will modify nutrient concatenation and vastly impact the life rhythms ( Smyth, 2007 ) . Toxic Discharge- One of the biggest impacts of the desalinization works will come from the warm seawater that will be discharged as waste into the ocean which can kill marine animate beings. Surveies on the impact of desalinization discharge on marine life demo a decrease in echinoderms ( starfish, sea urchins etc. ) densenesss near the discharge countries. There was besides a important addition in leaf mortification and a decrease in carbohydrate storage in foliage tissues which was linked to increased alimentary handiness and exposure to the seawater. Research suggests that these marine workss are really sensitive to seawaters as they can undergo mortification from an addition of merely 1-2 parts per trillion in salt ( David A. Roberts, 2010 ) . Apart from being warm, it will be extremely concentrated and loaded with chemicals. Desalination works surveies in Western Australia found that the discharge could increase the temperature of Waterss within a seven square kilometer country environing the escape pipe by 0.1 to 0.5 & A ; deg ; C ( David A. Roberts, 2010 ) . A batch of chemicals like Cl, which is used in pretreatments such as cleansing of pipes, can harm the home ground. Chemicals like these can alter degree of O in H2O and warm seawater can raise temperature of sea H2O near the gap of the mercantile establishment. Tests done on H2O quality environing a desalinization works in Florida revealed that about 45 kilograms Cu was being discharged every twenty-four hours. The concentration of Cu was 5-10 times higher than normal concentrations and exceeded toxicity thresholds for native species ( David A. Roberts, 2010 ) . One of the deductions of outflowing discharge is that it can congregate in an country instead than scatter due to hapless circulation which will make a dead zone and change the ecosystem around the discharge country ( Heislers ) . Even the slightest alteration in ecosystem can impact fish migration, as they will hold to migrate from their nor mal eating and genteelness countries which will besides do them vulnerable to other marauders ( Smyth, 2007 ) . Noise- There will be a important addition in the degree of submerged noise due to high force per unit area pumps which will take to habitat debasement. Local giant populations, along with populations of seal, great white shark and penguin will be affected negatively ( Heislers ) . Regulative Model: There are many province and commonwealth Acts of the Apostless that manage environmental and marine impacts caused by the building and operation of the desalinization works. State Acts of the Apostless include the Environmental Protection act, Flora and Fauna Guarantee act, Planning and Environment act, and Coastal Management act. Whereas the Commonwealth act includes the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation ( EPBC ) act.

In what respects, if any, has A.V. Diceystripartite definition of parliamentary sovereignty become an anachronism - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1325 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Politics Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Introduction A. V. Diceys traditional definition of parliamentary sovereignty cast Parliament as the supreme legislative force in the British constitution.[1] The verdict was given in 1885, prior to many of the pressing constitutional changes of the twentieth century. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "In what respects, if any, has A.V. Diceystripartite definition of parliamentary sovereignty become an anachronism?" essay for you Create order His definition had three aspects. First, Parliament is the supreme law-maker, entitled to formulate and pass any law that it wishes. Second, the supremacy of legislation means that no other constitutional body, including the courts, can question it. Third, no Parliament is able to bind its successors or alternatively been bound by its predecessors. This essay will assess the traditional Diceyan view in the context of modern developments. Parliament as supreme law-maker Parliaments status as the only body able to formulate and pass legislation has its roots in the conflict between the monarchy and the legislature in the seventeenth century, when the king attempted to rule by prerogative. The Bill of Rights that followed in 1689 subordinated the monarchy and the judiciary to Parliaments supreme law-making power.[2] Parliament can even go so far as to pass laws with retrospective force, as it did with the War Damage Act 1965 to deny compensation to an oil company whose installations had been damaged during the Second World War.[3] In the recent landmark case of R (Jackson) v AG,[4] Parliaments ability to use the Parliament Act 1911 to amend the Parliament Act 1949 was questioned in the light of the controversial Hunting Act of 2004. This would have represented an existential challenge to parliamentary supremacy. However, the House of Lords concluded that in fact there were no limits to the type of laws that Parliament could pass using the Parliam ent Acts, except where Parliament had limited itself by limitations in the legislation. It may be argued that the trend towards devolution does in fact serve to undermine Parliaments supreme position. However, it is perhaps truer to say that devolution limits Parliaments jurisdiction rather than its authority. The most powerful devolved body, the Scottish Parliament, has carved out powers over many areas including health policy and criminal justice, but can scarcely be regarded as a rival to a Parliament whose authority delegated those powers in the first place.[5] In the light of the recent independence referendum the Scottish Parliament will expand its remit further, but will not be able to overrule Westminster where the UK Parliament retains jurisdiction.[6] Deference to Acts of Parliament The deference of the executive and judiciary to Parliament is underpinned by the Bill of Rights 1689, which drastically reduced monarchical power and prevented the courts from overruling statute with common law.[7] The House of Lords in Jackson was keen to stress that while it was free to interpret the wording of the Hunting Act 2004, it could not question the standing of Parliament by challenging the law itself with reference to the earlier Parliament Acts. Although the case was controversial, the House of Lords approach in fact neatly illustrated the supremacy of Acts of Parliament. Unlike the US system, there can be no recourse to a supreme court to plead on the unconstitutional nature of legislation. Indeed, the traditional view of supremacy was confirmed in the case of Pickin v British Railways Board,[8] in which the House of Lords had declared that the courts had no power to challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament (this is sometimes known as the enrolled bill rule). Arguably, the only challenge to the validity of Acts of Parliament now emanates from the European Union, whose Court of Justice can strike down Member State legislation which does not accord with EU primary legislation. This was evident in the infamous Factortame case[9], in which it was held that the UKs Merchant Shipping Act 1988 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" designed to prevent Spanish trawlers from fishing in British waters by registering their boats as British à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" was invalid because it derogated from EU law, which is supreme over national law. For the UK Parliament this painfully illustrated the vulnerability of Acts of Parliament to scrutiny by an outside body.[10] However, it is doubtful that the episode presents an existential challenge to parliamentary supremacy because at any time Parliament could itself extricate itself from EU scrutiny by legislating to leave the European Union. Nor does the Human Rights Act 1998 pose a real challenge to supremacy. As one com mentator points out, Parliament is free to choose not to amend a provision of the Act even when it has been declared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights by a judge.[11] The principle of binding successive parliaments It has been suggested on the basis of constitutional nature of the European Communities Act 1972 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" which incorporates the law of the EU into the domestic law of the UK à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" that in practical terms Parliament is not free to repeal all the legislation of its predecessors.[12] In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council,[13] Lord Justice Laws suggested that there were a variety of so-called constitutional statutes (including the ECA 1972) that Parliament could only expressly repeal, but not impliedly. On the face of it, this seemed to produce a measure of uncertainty both with regard to which statutes were in fact constitutional statutes, and whether implied repeal could be challenged in the courts. In fact, given the established convention that the courts cannot question the validity of Acts of Parliament (including those that repeal previous Acts), it is doubtful that even implied repeal could give rise to conflict. In any event, Parliament could simply legislate to expressly repeal certain statutes such as the ECA 1972 that were regarded in Thoburn as constitutional. Further, it is doubtful that executive dominance (the so-called elective dictatorship) could compromise the principle of not binding successor Parliaments because the executive does not have statutory tools at its disposal that could override Acts of Parliament. Conclusion There is no doubt that certain constitutional developments of the twentieth and first part of the current century, particularly in relation to the UKs membership of the European Union and the tendency towards devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have provided a series of challenges to the traditional Diceyan view of parliamentary supremacy. Nevertheless, in practice the three elements that Dicey espouses have held up remarkably well, and it will be intriguing to see if this continues. Bibliography Case Law Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 HL Edinburgh Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) UKHL J12 Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765 HL R (Jackson) v AG [2005] UKHL 56 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Factortame [1990] UKHL 7 Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 Legislation European Communities Act 1972 Human Rights Act 1998 Parliament Act 1911 Parliament Act 1947 War Damage Act 1965 Secondary Sources Allen, M. Thompson, B. Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law (10th ed, OUP, 2011) Bell, C. Constitutional transitions: the peculiarities of the British constitution and the politics of comparison in Public Law (2014) July, 446-71 Dicey, A. V. An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Elibron, 1982) Judge, D. The Parliamentary State (OUP, 1993) Smyth, D. Reeling in the years à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the Factortame saga in Practice and Procedure (1999) Dec 85-6 Tomkins, A. Public Law (2003, OUP) Unauthored case comment, Constitutional law: status of the ECA in Public Law (2002) June 351 Footnotes Albert Venn Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Elibron, 1982) 37-82 David Judge, The Parliamentary State (OUP, 1993) 20 Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 HL [2005] UKHL 56 Christine Bell, Constitutional transitions: the peculiarities of the British constitution and the politics of comparison in Public Law (2014) July, 446-71 Charles Livingstone, Constitutional debate rumbles on after No vote in In-House Lawyer (2014) Nov 53-55 Michael Allen Brian Thompson, Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law (10th ed, OUP, 2011) 55 [1974] AC 765 HL; this was a restatement of a position in Edinburgh Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) UKHL J12. R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Factortame [1990] UKHL 7 David Smyth Reeling in the years à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the Factortame saga in Practice and Procedure (1999) Dec 85-6 Adam Tomkins, Public Law (2003,OUP) 122 Unauthored case comment, Constitutional law: status of the ECA in Public Law (2002) June 351 [2002] EWHC 195