This article has two aims. First, it seeks to demonstrate that the democratic credentials of statutory rights instruments are stronger than bills of rights sceptics such as Professors James Allan and Jeremy Waldron realise. It does so by examining the process by which statutory bills of rights are enacted and then provides an account as to why they are adopted that differs from the one offered by Allan and Waldron. This is done to suggest that the reason why a statutory rights instrument is adopted and the process itself has considerable democratic significance. And second, it seeks to assess the democratic credentials of Professor Allan's own critique of statutory bills of rights. The analysis undertaken in this regard reveals that in important respects Allan is anything but the majoritarian democrat that he routinely claims to be.
Field of Research
189999 Law and Legal Studies not elsewhere classified
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact email@example.com.