<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.7" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-7.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Unconstitutionality à l’Anglaise - Is the UK having its Marbury v Madison moment?</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal" usage="primary">
    <namePart>Majewski, Kacper</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm type="text">Author</roleTerm>
    </role>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource/>
  <genre authority="rdacontent">Text</genre>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">xx#</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <dateIssued encoding="marc">2024</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <originInfo eventType="publisher">
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text"/>
    </place>
    <publisher>Verfassungsblog</publisher>
    <dateIssued>2024-05-06</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marccategory">electronic resource</form>
    <form authority="marcsmd">remote</form>
    <form type="media" authority="rdamedia">Computermedien</form>
    <form type="carrier" authority="rdacarrier">Online-Ressource</form>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract displayLabel="Summary">After long and tortuous proceedings in Parliament, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 finally received Royal Assent on Thursday 25 April. There are so many problems with the Act and they are so fundamental that there has been speculation that the courts might refuse to apply some of the Act’s provisions. In this blogpost, I suggest that aside from the ‘hard-line’ approach of striking down or disapplying the statute in whole or in part, the courts also have a ‘soft-line’ option of declaring its unconstitutionality without denying its status as binding law. I explain how such an intervention might fit into the constitutional tradition of the UK and what may make it attractive in the case at hand.</abstract>
  <accessCondition type="use and reproduction">CC BY-SA 4.0</accessCondition>
  <note type="statement of responsibility">Majewski, Kacper</note>
  <subject>
    <topic>Judicial Review</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Migration</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Safety of Rwanda Act</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Safety of Rwanda Bill</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>UK</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>UK Constitutionalism</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>declaration of incompatibility</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>migration law</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>soft judicial review</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" authority="gnd" xlink:href="(DE-588)4120730-0">
    <topic>Migration</topic>
  </subject>
  <classification authority="ddc" edition="23">342</classification>
  <location>
    <url displayLabel="raw object" usage="primary display">https://verfassungsblog.de/unconstitutionality-a-langlaise/</url>
  </location>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>Verfassungsblog</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <identifier type="issn">2366-7044</identifier>
    <name>
      <namePart>Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH</namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="doi">10.59704/bd8a3811bd7a8a0f</identifier>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">240506</recordCreationDate>
    <recordIdentifier source="DE-Verfassungsblog">10.59704/bd8a3811bd7a8a0f</recordIdentifier>
    <recordOrigin>Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl
				(Revision 1.140 20200717)</recordOrigin>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
