The Uk's Constitutional Evolution: How Many Charters?

The United Kingdom's constitution is unique in that it is uncodified, meaning it is not contained in a single document. Instead, it is made up of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties. This lack of centralisation leads to a flexible constitution that can be modified frequently, but it also means there are few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons. The UK's constitution is often referred to as 'unwritten', but this is not entirely accurate as large parts of it are written, just in different documents.

Explore related products

Constitutional History of the UK

$55.99 $69.99

The Constitutional History of England

$53.31 $67

American Constitutional History: A Brief Introduction

$36.95 $36.95

By Ann Lyon - Constitutional History Of The Uk

$117.93

American Constitutional History: A Brief Introduction

$33.57 $33.95

Timeline of the British Monarchy

$21.39 $25.99

The UK constitution is not codified

The UK's constitution is different from many other countries in that its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. Unlike France, Italy and many other places, the UK did not experience a revolution or moment of political rupture in the late eighteenth or nineteenth century, when written constitutions were at their most popular after the American Revolutionary War. The UK's constitution is spread across a number of places, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions), and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.

The UK's constitution is not codified, but it is largely written, in different documents. It has never been codified or brought together in a single document. The UK is different from most other countries, which have codified constitutions. However, New Zealand and Israel also lack codified constitutions. Codified constitutions are typically produced following a major historic turning point, such as the grant of independence, revolution, defeat in war, or complete collapse of the previous system of government. None of these things have happened in the UK, which is why it has never had cause to codify its constitution.

There are arguments for and against a codified UK constitution. Critics of the uncodified constitution argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse. In the UK system, there are few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons, which could alter the rules for its own advantage. In theory, a powerful government could abolish the devolved legislatures and repeal the Human Rights Act. It also can make the business of governing harder, as there will be doubts surrounding the roles and responsibilities of different political institutions. Proponents of a codified constitution argue that stating clearly all in one place how the political system operates would enable the government to better serve the public and the public to better engage with the government.

However, proponents of the UK's uncodified constitution praise its flexibility. The constitution has been modified frequently over many years in response to changing circumstances. They argue that this allows for a pragmatic approach, where different things can be tried, tested and developed, with an optimal arrangement being honed over time. They point to other countries with hard-to-change codified constitutions that have been unable to update their political systems in line with changing attitudes and political realities. Many also believe that having an uncodified constitution is more democratic. Rather than being bound by the decisions of past generations, it allows for each successive generation to influence the constitution through the representatives they elect.

The UK constitution is flexible

The UK's constitution is distinct from many other countries in that its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. Unlike the United States, for example, where the constitution is the 'supreme law', the UK system has no clear concept of a 'higher law'. This means there is no clear distinction between what is a constitutional law and what is a regular law.

The UK constitution is largely written, but in different documents. It has never been codified; it has never been brought together in a single document. The UK's constitution can be found in leading statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties. Examples of constitutional statutes include the Bill of Rights 1689, Acts of Union 1707 and 1800, the Act of Settlement 1701, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and the Human Rights Act 1998. Examples of conventions include that the monarch acts on ministerial advice, that the Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons, and that the Queen appoints as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.

The UK's uncodified constitution is praised by some for its flexibility. The constitution has been modified frequently over many years in response to changing circumstances. This allows for a pragmatic approach, where different things can be tried, tested, and developed, with an optimal arrangement being honed over time. The UK constitution is easily adaptable to constant changes within society, making parliamentary conventions and judicial courts responsive to these changes and keeping the law relevant.

However, the unwritten nature of the UK constitution has also been criticised as confusing and ambiguous, making it difficult for citizens to fully understand and, therefore, to know when a government is abusing its position. There are also risks to the flexible nature of the unwritten constitution, as laws are exposed to whimsical changes by parliament or the government, and it is easier for individual human rights to be eroded due to the lack of a strictly enforceable legal system.

The UK constitution is unwritten

The UK is often described as having an "unwritten" constitution. However, this is not entirely accurate. While the UK constitution is not codified, meaning it is not contained in a single document, it does exist in various written and unwritten sources. These include statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties. Examples of constitutional statutes include the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The UK's uncodified constitution has several advantages. It is highly flexible and adaptable, allowing for pragmatic governance that can easily evolve with changing times and circumstances. This flexibility enables the UK to try out different approaches, test them, and develop them over time. The unwritten nature of the constitution also promotes democracy, accountability, transparency, and mandate.

However, there are also risks associated with an unwritten constitution. The lack of a codified constitution makes it easier for individual human rights to be eroded, as there is no strictly enforceable legal system in place. The UK constitution is also criticised for its lack of clarity, making it more challenging for citizens to understand and identify any abuse of power by the government.

Some proponents of a codified constitution argue that it would strengthen the legal protection of democracy and freedom. They suggest that a written constitution would provide a clear distinction between constitutional law and regular law, establish special procedures for constitutional changes, and better protect individual rights.

In summary, while the UK constitution is often described as "unwritten," it is more accurately described as uncodified, existing in various written and unwritten sources. This uncodified nature has advantages, such as flexibility and adaptability, but also presents risks, including potential erosion of human rights and a lack of clarity for citizens. The ongoing debate around the UK constitution reflects the complexities and challenges of governance in a dynamic society.

Explore related products

We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution

$34.54 $39.99

Constitutional Change in the UK

$55.99 $34.99

The Supreme Court: An Essential History, Second Edition

$27.1 $34.99

Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference)

$16.82 $22

"Have To" History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Stuff You Don't Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About The Most Important Cases In Supreme Court History

$12.95

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Sources of the UK constitution

The UK constitution is unique in that it is uncodified and unwritten, meaning it is not contained in a single document or set of documents. Instead, it comprises various sources, including statutes, common law, conventions, and treaties.

Statutes, or Acts of Parliament, are laws passed by Parliament with constitutional significance. Examples include the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, and the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which regulate the powers of the two Houses of Parliament. The Supreme Court recognises that some Acts of Parliament have special constitutional status, such as the Magna Carta, which established the requirement for a "common counsel" (now Parliament) to represent the people.

Common law refers to the body of legal precedent established by court decisions over time, particularly regarding the powers of the Crown, Parliament, and the judiciary.

Conventions are unwritten rules and practices that have developed over time and are considered binding. Examples include the principle of collective responsibility and the convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of the House of Commons.

Treaties, such as international treaties ratified by the UK, can also have constitutional significance. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon impact the powers and rights of the UK government and citizens.

Other sources of the UK constitution include works of authority, such as writings by legal scholars and judges, and the law and custom of Parliament. The UK's constitution is flexible and can be easily amended, reflecting its ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

The UK's uncodified constitution has been praised for its flexibility, allowing for a pragmatic approach to governance. However, some argue that it is confusing and ambiguous, making it challenging for citizens to understand and hold the government accountable.

Checks and balances of the UK constitution

The UK constitution is different from many other countries in that its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. It is often described as 'unwritten', but this is not strictly true; it is largely written, but in different documents. It has never been codified; brought together in a single document. The UK did not experience a revolution or moment of political rupture in the late eighteenth or nineteenth century when written constitutions were at their most popular.

The UK system has no clear concept of a 'higher law': there is no clear distinction between what is a constitutional law and what is a regular law. This also means there are no special procedures for changing the constitution itself in the UK. If it is determined to do so, a ‘constitutional statute’ can be repealed or amended by simple majority votes in Parliament, like any other legislation.

The UK relies on a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses of power. The doctrine of separation of powers, which divides governance into three branches—an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary—has influenced the UK constitution. In practice, the UK does not aim for a strict separation of powers but opts for a compromise where some functions are shared between the institutions of the state. The executive comprises the Crown and the UK Government, including the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. The judiciary exercises scrutiny over the executive by ensuring that the executive acts within its powers. This involves checking that any legislative acts carried out by the executive are within the scope of the powers delegated by Parliament. The courts can therefore question the lawfulness of actions by public bodies, including government ministers, through a procedure known as judicial review.

The Human Rights Act 1998 provides a balance between the three branches by requiring the courts to scrutinise acts of all branches in light of the main provisions of the ECHR. However, Parliament can override Convention rights by using very clear language. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a greater degree of separation between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. The judiciary's independence is further protected by life tenure for senior judges and a requirement for a resolution of both Houses of Parliament to remove a High Court judge from office.

The UK's uncodified constitution has been praised for its flexibility, allowing for a pragmatic approach where different things can be tried, tested, and developed. However, some argue that it can lead to unintended negative consequences and make it difficult for citizens to understand, thereby hindering their ability to recognise when a government is abusing its position.

Frequently asked questions