This Comment argues that the main impetus behind the increased discretion afforded the British judiciary is the increased power of the British judiciary relative to Parliament. Since at least the Glorious Revolution at the end of the 17th century, it had been the case that Parliament was irrefutably and absolutely superior to all other political authority in the British Isles. But with British ascension to the European Union and myriad international human rights treaties, there are now other claims on British sovereignty, especially when British law conflicts with international norms. This trend looks likely to continue and a convergence between judicial reasoning between American and British judges seems likely to relegate Hart’s thesis to history. Part II of this Comment discusses the judgment given in this particular case. Part III details how the reasoning of the judgment relates to Hart’s analysis of American jurisprudential thought. And finally, Part IV gives some context for the emerging changes in English jurisprudence that accounts for the convergence with American judicial reasoning, and argues that this trend is almost certain to continue.
Family Law, International Law, Children, Comparative Law