From the Concept to the Practice of Parliamentary Immunity

Open access


Scholars have long debated the normative rationality, the temporal and legal aspects, and finally the limits and modern practices of parliamentary immunity. Therefore, this study does not insist on these classical interpretations anymore, but seeks to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the conceptual history of parliamentary immunity. Embracing two schools of thought, the Koselleckian interpretation and the Skinnerian variant, this paper aims to establish and clarify in detail the story of the concept of parliamentary immunity in order to elucidate, in a Socratic fashion, what we really mean when we say that a senator or a deputy benefits from legislative immunity. This inquiry will help us emphasise how this concept leaves behind its abstract notion and becomes an institution with strict rules and practices. In addition, considering the importance of this concept in the modern legislative and rhetoric histories and the frequency with which it is used, this study will question the meanings of parliamentary immunity in the light of different historical settings and will eventually trace out a single, coherent, and unified conceptual matrix. My contention is that once parliamentary immunity – seen as a conceptual construct only adjusting the balance of power between the executive and the legislative powers – becomes an institution with strong practices, it enforces the parliament as a unified and independent body and creates the prerequisite conditions for the democratic development.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bobbio N. (1988). Liberalism and democracy. London: Verso.

  • Caesar J. (1917). The Gallic War. Edwards H. J. trans. London: Harvard University Press.

  • Cicero M. (1939) Philippics. Walter C. A. trans. London: Harvard University Press. Collin P. (2000). Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A&C Black.

  • Erskine M. (2003). Treatise on the Law Privileges Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. London: LexisNexis.

  • Gillespie J. (1997). The Age of Richard II. Cornwall: St. Martin’s Press.

  • Griffith G. (1997). ‘Parliamentary Privilege: Use Misuse and Proposals for Reform’. NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service. No. 4.

  • Griffith G. (2007). ‘Parliamentary Privilege: Major Developments and Current Issues’. NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service. No. 1.

  • Griffith G. (2009). ‘Parliamentary Privilege: First Principles and Recent Applications’. NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service Paper. No. 1.

  • Hardt S. (2013). Parliamentary Immunity. A Comprehensive Study of the Systems of Parliamentary Immunity of the United Kingdom France and the Netherlands in a European Context. Portland: Intersetia

  • Hulst M. (2000). The Parliamentary Mandate. A Global Comparative Study. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union Press.

  • Kantorowicz E. (1997). The King’s Two Bodies. Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Livius T. (1857). History of Rome. Spillan D. trans. London: Covent Garden.

  • Macreadie R. & Gardiner G. (2010). ‘An introduction to parliamentary privilege’. Department of Parliamentary Service [online] No. 2 2010. Available at <>.

  • Madison J. Hamilton A. & Jay J.(1987). The Federalist papers. New York: Penguin Group.

  • Manin B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mannow P. (2010). In the King’s Shadow. The Political Anatomy of Democratic Representation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • McGee D. (2004). ‘The scope of Parliamentary Privilege’. New Zeeland Law Journal. Vol. 84.

  • Mcgee S. (2001). Rules on Parliamentary Immunity in the European Parliament and the Member States of European Union. Belgium: ECPRD Belgium 2001.

  • Mill J. S. (2001). On Liberty. Kitchener: Batoche Books.

  • Palonen K. (2002). ‘The History of Concepts as a Style of Political Theorizing: Quentin Skinner’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s Subversion of Normative Political Theory’. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 1 pp. 91-106.

  • Pollard A. F. (1920). The Evolution of Parliament. London: Longmans Green.

  • Rein A. (2001). Le Grand Robert de La Langue Francaise. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.

  • Richter M. (1995). The History of Political and Social Concepts. A Critical Introduction. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Report on the Scope and Lifting of Parliamentary immunity Venice Commission. Available at <>.

  • Sartori G. (1970). ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 64 No. 4 pp. 1033-1053.

  • Schmitt C. (2008). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Smith W. (1882). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

  • Soulier G. (1966). L’inviolabilité parlementaire en droit droit français. Paris: Pichon/Durand-Auzias.

  • Suetonius G. (1914). The Lives of Caesars. Rolfe J. C. trans. London: Harvard University Press.

  • Steinberger P. (1993). The Concept of Political Judgement. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Tocqueville A. (1856). The Old Regime and the Revolution. John Bonne J. trans. New York: Harper and Bothers Publishers.

  • Wigley S. (2003). ‘Parliamentary Immunity: Protecting democracy or protecting corruption?’ The Journal of Political Philosophy. Vol. 11 No. 1 pp. 23-40.

  • Wigley S. (2009). ‘Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: The Case of Turkey’. Human Rights Quarterly. Available at <>

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 331 151 4
PDF Downloads 132 65 2