Jump to content

Archive:Notwithstanding clause: Difference between revisions

From IdeaWazaWiki
← Older editNewer edit →

wikipedia>Rodw

Restore tag, AI-generated text doesn't disappear on its own over time, and it doesn't "age into" non-generated text. It needs to be removed, and there is no evidence of that having happened. One option would be to restore the redirect in Special:Diff/735460836
m Disambiguating links to European Communities Act 1972 (link changed to European Communities Act 1972 (UK)) using DisamAssist.
Line 21: Line 21:
During the [[Brexit]] process, the [[Internal Market Bill]] initially included provisions enabling ministers to make regulations that would operate despite incompatible domestic or international law.<ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Islam |first=Faisal |title=Will there be a further Brexit breach of the law? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55144313 |website=BBC News |date=1 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Brick Court Chambers | url=https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/brexit-blog/2021/01 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=True (Bad) Faith 2020? Part Two: Excavating the Legal Rationale for the 'Emergency Clauses' in the UK Internal Market Bill – RECONNECT | date=24 November 2020 | url=https://reconnect-europe.eu/blog/true-bad-faith-2020-part-two-excavating-the-legal-rationale-for-the-emergency-clauses-in-the-uk-internal-market-bill/ }}</ref> The House of Lords European Union Committee described the relevant provision as a “notwithstanding clause”.<ref>{{cite web |title=The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Part 5 |url=https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3019/documents/28597/default/ |publisher=House of Lords European Union Committee |date=16 October 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> The provisions were withdrawn before the Bill received [[royal assent]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681 |website=BBC News |date=8 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>
During the [[Brexit]] process, the [[Internal Market Bill]] initially included provisions enabling ministers to make regulations that would operate despite incompatible domestic or international law.<ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Islam |first=Faisal |title=Will there be a further Brexit breach of the law? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55144313 |website=BBC News |date=1 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Brick Court Chambers | url=https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/brexit-blog/2021/01 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=True (Bad) Faith 2020? Part Two: Excavating the Legal Rationale for the 'Emergency Clauses' in the UK Internal Market Bill – RECONNECT | date=24 November 2020 | url=https://reconnect-europe.eu/blog/true-bad-faith-2020-part-two-excavating-the-legal-rationale-for-the-emergency-clauses-in-the-uk-internal-market-bill/ }}</ref> The House of Lords European Union Committee described the relevant provision as a “notwithstanding clause”.<ref>{{cite web |title=The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Part 5 |url=https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3019/documents/28597/default/ |publisher=House of Lords European Union Committee |date=16 October 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> The provisions were withdrawn before the Bill received [[royal assent]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681 |website=BBC News |date=8 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>


In 2010 the [[European Scrutiny Committee]] held hearings on the [[sovereignty clause]] in the [[2010-11 European Union Bill]], particularly about whether explicit notwithstanding clauses aimed at European Union law would be upheld by [[British courts]], with most but not all constitutional-law experts who appeared saying that courts were likely to apply them.<ref>{{cite report |title=The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/63307.htm |publisher=House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee |date=24 December 2010 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> In 2004,<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/076/04076.i-i.html |publisher=House of Commons |date=2004 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> 2007<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/247 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and 2009<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty Of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/433 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> - during the Blair administration - a series of [[private members' bills]] proposed that a subsequent Act of Parliament could expressly disapply specified EU obligations by operating notwithstanding the [[European Communities Act 1972]], and later more targeted bills were proposed on restricting benefits to UK nationals<ref>{{cite report |title=Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill 2015–16 |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7491/ |publisher=House of Commons Library |date=2 February 2016 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and restricting [[free movement of labour]] into the UK.<ref>{{cite web |title=UK Borders Control Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0053/15053.pdf |publisher=House of Commons |date=7 July 2014 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>
In 2010 the [[European Scrutiny Committee]] held hearings on the [[sovereignty clause]] in the [[2010-11 European Union Bill]], particularly about whether explicit notwithstanding clauses aimed at European Union law would be upheld by [[British courts]], with most but not all constitutional-law experts who appeared saying that courts were likely to apply them.<ref>{{cite report |title=The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/63307.htm |publisher=House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee |date=24 December 2010 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> In 2004,<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/076/04076.i-i.html |publisher=House of Commons |date=2004 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> 2007<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/247 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and 2009<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty Of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/433 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> - during the Blair administration - a series of [[private members' bills]] proposed that a subsequent Act of Parliament could expressly disapply specified EU obligations by operating notwithstanding the [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|European Communities Act 1972]], and later more targeted bills were proposed on restricting benefits to UK nationals<ref>{{cite report |title=Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill 2015–16 |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7491/ |publisher=House of Commons Library |date=2 February 2016 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and restricting [[free movement of labour]] into the UK.<ref>{{cite web |title=UK Borders Control Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0053/15053.pdf |publisher=House of Commons |date=7 July 2014 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>


===India===
===India===

Revision as of 11:42, 30 September 2026

Template:AI-generated Template:Short description Template:For

A notwithstanding clause (French: Clause nonobstant), (Lat: Non Obstante) is a provision in legislation that allows a law to operate despite certain other legal rules, rights, or principles that might otherwise conflict with it. Such clauses are used to assert legislative supremacy and to prevent courts from invalidating or limiting the effect of the statute based on conflicting laws or rights.

Overview

In common law jurisdictions, a notwithstanding clause typically uses language such as "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act" or "notwithstanding any law to the contrary". It signals a clear legislative intent that the provision should take precedence over any inconsistent statutory, common law, or constitutional provisions.

Use

Canada

In some jurisdictions, notwithstanding clauses have been used to override certain constitutional rights where allowed by law, for example Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows the charter to be overridden on a time limited basis by provincial legislatures.

United States

It can also be used to ensure that statutory provisions prevail over common law principles such as due process if there is a clash, with Section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan ActTemplate:Sfn[1]

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorises the Homeland Security Secretary, “notwithstanding any other provision of law” to waive legal, particularly environmental requirements blocking construction of border barriers.[2]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, legislation has used notwithstanding language to clarify the relationship between an Act and otherwise applicable domestic or international law. The Safety of Rwanda Act stated that its provisions applied notwithstanding specified provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998,[3] the Act was repealed in 2025.[4]

During the Brexit process, the Internal Market Bill initially included provisions enabling ministers to make regulations that would operate despite incompatible domestic or international law.[5][6][7][8] The House of Lords European Union Committee described the relevant provision as a “notwithstanding clause”.[9] The provisions were withdrawn before the Bill received royal assent.[10]

In 2010 the European Scrutiny Committee held hearings on the sovereignty clause in the 2010-11 European Union Bill, particularly about whether explicit notwithstanding clauses aimed at European Union law would be upheld by British courts, with most but not all constitutional-law experts who appeared saying that courts were likely to apply them.[11] In 2004,[12] 2007[13] and 2009[14] - during the Blair administration - a series of private members' bills proposed that a subsequent Act of Parliament could expressly disapply specified EU obligations by operating notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, and later more targeted bills were proposed on restricting benefits to UK nationals[15] and restricting free movement of labour into the UK.[16]

India

See also

References

  1. ↑ [Institute for Justice (U.S.), amicus brief discussing Section 1983, p. 3
  2. ↑ Template:Cite report
  3. ↑ "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, section 3". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/section/3/enacted. 
  4. ↑ "Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, section 40". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/section/40/enacted. 
  5. ↑ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses
  6. ↑ Islam, Faisal (1 December 2020). "Will there be a further Brexit breach of the law?". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55144313. 
  7. ↑ "Brick Court Chambers". https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/brexit-blog/2021/01. 
  8. ↑ "True (Bad) Faith 2020? Part Two: Excavating the Legal Rationale for the 'Emergency Clauses' in the UK Internal Market Bill – RECONNECT". 24 November 2020. https://reconnect-europe.eu/blog/true-bad-faith-2020-part-two-excavating-the-legal-rationale-for-the-emergency-clauses-in-the-uk-internal-market-bill/. 
  9. ↑ "The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Part 5". House of Lords European Union Committee. 16 October 2020. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3019/documents/28597/default/. 
  10. ↑ "Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks". 8 December 2020. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681. 
  11. ↑ Template:Cite report
  12. ↑ "Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill". House of Commons. 2004. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/076/04076.i-i.html. 
  13. ↑ "Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill". https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/247. 
  14. ↑ "Sovereignty Of Parliament (European Communities) Bill". https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/433. 
  15. ↑ Template:Cite report
  16. ↑ "UK Borders Control Bill". House of Commons. 7 July 2014. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0053/15053.pdf. 

Sources

Template:Law-term-stub

Retrieved from "https://ideawaza.com/index.php?title=Archive:Notwithstanding_clause&oldid=105792"