Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum. Adam Tomkins
12.8.2005.
Gareth Crossman, Reconciling freedom with security, New Law Journal, 5.8.2005, S. 1193.
Pressekonferenz des Prime Minister, 5.8.2005.
A. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Modern Law Review 2005, S. 654.
HC vol. 372, col. 925 (15.10.2001).
Stephen Tierney, Determining the State of Exception: What Role for Parliament and the Courts?, Modern Law Review 2005, S. 668, 671f.
Siehe z.B. R v. A (No. 2) [2001] UKHL 25.
White Paper „Rights Brought Home: the Human Rights Bill“, Cm 3782 (1997), Abs. 2.13.
Abschnitt 4 (6) (b) Human Rights Act 1998.
Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill, Oktober 1997, Cm 3782, Kapitel 2.4.
Siehe z.B. Lord Bingham, A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. The Constitution Unit Spring lecture 2002, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/90.pdf (28.4.2006); A Department for Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper, Constitutional Reform: a new way of Appointing Judges CP 10/03, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom (CP 11/03), 14.7.2003.
Siehe www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/reform/pubs.htm (28.3.2006).
New QC scheme to put customer first, 26.5.2004, http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp (26.4.2006).
Teil 2 des Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Robert Stevens, Reform in haste and repent at leisure, Legal Studies 24 (2004), S. 30 m.w.N.
Brenda Hale, A Supreme court for the United Kingdom?, Legal Studies 24 (2004), Ausgaben 1 und 2, Constitutional Innovations: the Creation of a Supreme Court for the UK; Domestic, Comparative and International Reflections. A Special Issue, S. 36.
Lord Woolf, The Rule of Law and a Change in the Constitution. Squire Centenary Lecture. Cambridge University. 3.3.2004, S. 8, www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/lcj030304.htm (28.3.2006).
Lord Woolf (Fn. 138), S. 2, 9, 11.
Vgl. Lord Woolf, Lionel Cohen Lecture, Jerusalem 2.12.2003, http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/lcj021203.htm (26.4.2006).
8 BHRC 56, The Times, 22.2.2000.
2000 Justiciary Cases (in: Session Cases) 208.
Diana Woodhouse, The Constitutional and Political Implications of a UK Supreme Court, Legal Studies 24 (2004), Ausgaben 1 und 2, Constitutional Innovations: the Creation of a Supreme Court for the UK; Domestic, Comparative and International Reflections. A Special Issue, S. 134; Andrew Le Sueur/Richard Cornes, The Future of the United Kingdom’s Highest Courts, 2001, S. 126ff.; siehe auch Jutta Limbach, Concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution, Modern Law Review 2001, S. 1, mit Hinweisen auf das deutsche Bundestagswahlsystem; Anthony King, Does the United Kingdom still have a constitution?, 2001, S. 70; Craig (Fn. 58), S. 102, benutzt den Begriff der „Kompetenz-Kompetenz“.
Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, CP 11/03, Juli 2003, Abs. 20.
Robert Stevens, The English Judges. Their Role in the Changing Constitution, 2002, S. 10.
Cm 3782 (1997).
Abschnitt 2.12.
White Paper, Abschnitt 1.14.
Martina Künnecke, The impact of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Z v. UK on the development of the liability of public bodies in the UK, European Public Law 8 (2002), S. 25, 28, 31.
[2001] 2 AC 550.
EGMR, Nr. 23452/94, Urteil vom 28.10.1998, Rep. 1998-VIII; auch veröffentlicht in [1999] 1 FLR 193.
EGMR, Nr. 29392/95, Urteil vom 10.5.2001, Rep. 2001-V; auch veröffentlicht in [2001] 2 FLR 612.
[2001] 2 FLR 612, Abschnitt 100.
Lord Irvine