Alison L Young is a Fellow at Hertford College and teaches Constitutional law, Administrative law, Media law  and Comparative Public law.

She studied Law and French at the University of Birmingham, before coming to Hertford College, obtaining the BCL and a DPhil. She was a tutor in law and a Fellow of Balliol College from 1997 to 2000, before returning to Hertford as a Fellow and Tutor in law in October 2000.

She researches in applied constitutional theory, public law and human rights. She is the author of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act (Hart, 2009). She held a Leverhulme Research Fellowship from 2013-2015, using this to enable her to work part-time whilst writing her second book Citizen Engaged?: Democratic Dialogue and the Consitution (forthcoming: OUP 2016).


Displaying 1 - 25 of 39. Sorted by year, then title.
Filter by
  • A L Young, 'M Gordon: Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution' [2016] Public Law 367 [Review]
  • A L Young and Graham Gee, 'Regaining Sovereignty?: Brexit, the UK Parliament and the Common Law' (2016) 22 European Public Law 131
  • A L Young, 'Hiebert and Kelly; Parliamentary Bills of Rights: The Experience of New Zealand and the United Kingdom' (2015) 63 American Journal of Comparative law 810 [Review]
  • A L Young, 'Lord Hoffmann and Public Law: TV Dinner or Dining at the Savoy?' in Paul S Davies and Justine Pila (eds), The Jurisprudence of Lord Hoffmann (Hart Publishing 2015)
    The Chapter examines Lord Hoffmann's contribution to public law, arguing that his main contribution was the way in which he approached public law purposively and specifically, as opposed to applying axiomatic and general rules. The chapter then evalutes this approach to public law, arguing that, although generally this is a favourable approach for public law, this may be problematic when applied to key constitutional foundational priniciples of public law.
    ISBN: 9781849465915
  • Stephen Dimelow and A L Young, 'High Speed Rail, Europe and the Constitution' (2014) 73 Cambridge Law Journal 234 [Case Note]
    Case Comment on HS2.
  • A L Young, 'Proportionality is Dead: Long Live Proportionality!' in G Huscroft, B Miller and G Webber (eds), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification and Reasoning (Cambridge University Press 2014)
  • A L Young, 'The Human Rights Act 1998, Horizontality and the Constitutionalisation of Private Law' in Katja Ziegler and Peter Huber (eds), Current Problems in the Protection of Human Rights (Hart Publishing 2013)
    ISBN: 9781849461245
  • A L Young, 'Accountability, Human Rights Adjudication and the Human Rights Act 1998' in N Bamforth and P Leyland (eds), Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution (Oxford University Press 2013)
    ISBN: 9780199670024
  • A L Young, 'Parliamentary Sovereignty Re-defined' in R Rawlings, P Leyland and A L Young (eds), Sovereignty and the Law: Domestic European and International Perspectives (Oxford University Press 2013)
    This chapter investigates whether Parliament should be able to bind its successors as to the manner and form in which it enacts legislation. First, it evaluates the argument of Jeffrey Goldsworthy that this should be so, provided that these restrictions do not restrict the substantive law-making powers of Parliament. It argues that Goldsworthy’s theory may be difficult to implement in practice, and that his aim of empowering Parliament to enact long-standing commitments could be achieved more clearly without creating practical difficulties, or requiring a change in the conception of sovereignty. Second, it provides a normative justification against empowering Parliament to bind its successors. Goldsworthy’s theory can be understood as an argument in favour of maximising the sovereignty of Parliament, where sovereignty is understood as unlimited law-making power. The chapter adopts a different focus, looking at the extent to which sovereignty entails the ability to determine the sphere of one’s own competences. It argues that, when understood in this light, it is more descriptively accurate and normatively justifiable to regard sovereignty as shared between Parliament and the courts. To empower Parliament to bind its successors is normatively undesirable as it could upset the delicate balance of powers in the UK constitution, where acceptance by Parliament and the courts is required to enable a change in the rules regarding the definition of Parliament and the manner in which legislation is enacted. This requirement facilitates legitimacy, ensuring that the long-standing commitments that Parliament wishes to preserve reflect the long-standing commitments shared by the people and the courts.
    ISBN: 9780199684069
  • A L Young (ed), Sovereignty and the Law: Domestic, European and International Perspectives (Oxford University Press 2013)
    ISBN: 9780199684069
  • A L Young, 'Sovereignty: Demise, Afterlife or Partial Resurrection?' (2011) 9 International Journal of Constitutional law 163
    DOI: 10.1093/icon/mor028
    This article is a response to the contributions of Nick Barber and Trevor Allan found in this volume. It argues that an analysis of “sovereignty” does serve a useful purpose in U.K. constitutional law. More specifically, it argues that discussions of “sovereignty” should also include an analysis of constitutive rules, particularly aiming to understand which institutions are “sovereign” in the sense of having the power to define and modify these constitutive rules. When analysed in this manner, an argument can be made that Dicey's traditional theory that Parliament cannot bind its successors is still a valid rule of the English legal system. In addition, this rule is desirable. Its presence is necessary, although not sufficient, to ensure that both Parliament and the courts have a rule in defining and modifying constitutive rules. This dual role is desirable as it helps to maintain the legitimacy of the U.K.’s “political” constitution.
  • A L Young, 'Mapping Horizontal Effect' in Hoffman (ed), The Impact of the UK Human Rights Act on Private Law (Cambridge University Press 2011)
    Am examination of the different forms ways in which human rights may have horizontal effect and their relationship to the way in which human rights law may have an impact on private law.
    ISBN: 9781107009325
  • A L Young, 'Is Dialogue Working under the Human Rights Act 1998?' [2011] Public Law 773
  • A L Young, David Hoffman and Gavin Phillipson, 'Introduction' in Hoffman (ed), The Impact of the UK Human Rights Act on Private Law (Cambridge University Press 2011)
    Introduction to a book on the impact of the HRA on private law. The book sets out the main issues of discussion and themes running through this area of the law.
    ISBN: 9781107009325
  • A L Young, 'Precedent' in Hoffman (ed), The Impact of the UK Human Rights Act on Private Law (Cambridge University Press 2011)
    The chapter explains and evaluates the different ways in which courts are bound to follow decisions of the ECtHR. It evaluates the role of section 2(1) HRA 1998, as well as analysing the extent to which courts should follow decisions of the ECtHR as opposed to a binding precedent from a concurrent or higher court.
    ISBN: 9781107009325
  • A L Young, 'Deference, Dialogue and the Search for Legitimacy' (2010) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 815
    DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqq028
    This review article discusses the relationship between deference and the presumption of constitutionality, as discussed in Brian Foley’s book, Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality. Foley argues for the rejection of the presumption of constitutionality as it operates in the Irish Constitution, proposing instead a ‘due deference’ approach. This approach would require courts to give varying degrees of weight to the legislature’s conclusions that particular legislative provisions are constitutional. The article praises Foley’s book, particularly its stronger justification of due deference which focuses on its ability to foster a culture of justification which, in turn, facilitates popular sovereignty. The review also provides a criticism of the argument made in the book and discusses its application to the UK constitution. First, the review argues that the focus on constitutional as opposed to institutional factors to determine deference may, in practice, undermine Foley’s justification of due deference. Second it argues that Foley’s justification of deference may be best served in the UK constitution by a theory of democratic dialogue as opposed to the application of due deference.
  • A L Young, 'K Ewing, "Bonfire of the Liberties": Book Review' (2010) 6 European Human Rights Law Review 659 [Review]
  • A L Young, 'In Defence of Due Deference' (2009) 72 Modern Law Review 554
    The doctrine of deference permeates human rights review. It plays a role in de¢ning Convention rights, in determining the nature of the proportionality test applied when analysing non-absolute rights, as well as in deciding the stringency of its application. The role of deference has recently been subjected to both judicial and academic criticism, some of which advocates the demise of the doctrine. This article develops a contextual account of deference that is justi¢ed for epistemic reasons, rather than reasons of relative authority. This conception is able to withstand current criticism and ismodest enough to play a role in a range of di¡erent justi¢cations and understandings of judicial review under theHuman Rights Act.The article then provides amore detailed account of deference, taking account of the relative institutional features of the legislature, executive and judiciary, without running the risk that the court fails to performits constitutional function of protecting individual rights.
  • A L Young, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act (2009)
    The Human Rights Act 1998 is criticised for providing a weak protection of human rights. The principle of parliamentary legislative supremacy prevents entrenchment, meaning that the courts cannot overturn legislation passed after the Act that contradicts Convention rights. This book investigates this assumption, arguing that the principle of parliamentary legislative supremacy is sufficiently flexible to enable a stronger protection of human rights, which can replicate the effect of entrenchment. Nevertheless, it is argued that the current protection should not be strengthened. If correctly interpreted, the Human Rights Act can facilitate democratic dialogue that enables courts to perform their proper correcting function to protect rights from abuse, whilst enabling the legislature to authoritatively determine contestable issues surrounding the extent to which human rights should be protected, alongside other rights, interests and goals in a particular society. This understanding of the Human Rights Act also provides a different justification for the preservation of Dicey's conception of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK Constitution.
    ISBN: 978-1-84113-830-5
  • A L Young, 'Human Rights, Horizontality and the Public/Private Divide: Towards a Holistic Approach' (2009) 2 UCL Human Rights Law Review 159
  • A L Young, 'Protecting Rights without a Bill of Rights: Institutional Performance and Reform in Australia' [2007] Public Law 846 [Review]
    Book Review
    ISBN: 0033-3565
  • A L Young, 'Horizontality and the Human Rights Act 1998' in Katja S Ziegler (ed), Human Rights and Private Law: Privacy as Autonomy (Hart Publishing 2007)
    ISBN: 1-84113-714-6




She teaches Constitutional law, Administrative law, European Community law and European Community Competition law (and has previously taught Jurisprudence, Introduction to law and Land law).

Research projects

Research Interests

Constitutional Theory, Human Rights, Public law and European Union law.

Options taught

Administrative Law, Jurisprudence, European Union Law, Constitutional Law (Senior Status), Comparative Human Rights, Comparative Public Law

Research projects