endorsed in Jackson by Lord Hope, who regarded Parliament's sovereignty as subject to the rule of law. Parliamentary sovereignty as a judicial creation Richard Ekins criticises as "historically false [and] jurisprudentially absurd" the claim made by Lord Steyn and Lord Hope that parliamentary sovereignty was solely a judicial creation. He argues that the doctrine is fundamental to the UK constitution because it has been accepted by all three branches of government; "while the judges also accept the rule, they did not create it and may not (lawfully) change it". However, Stuart Lakin responds that parliamentary sovereignty does, in practice and in theory, depend on its recognition by the courts. Given that Parliament derives its powers from law, we have a normative reason to erase the concept of sovereignty from our constitutional landscape ... [This perspective] demands that Parliament may only exercise power in accordance with the principles – whatever they may be – that justify that power. See also United Kingdom constitutional law United Kingdom administrative law Notes References External links Divisional Court case report Court of Appeal case report House of Lords case report Reflections on Jackson v Attorney General: questioning sovereignty Constitutional aspects of the challenge to the Hunting Act 2004 United Kingdom administrative case law United Kingdom constitutional case law Sovereignty 2005 in the environment 2005 in British law 2005 in case law House of Lords cases Fox hunting