Isabella Carter
While most countries have a written constitution, a few nations have no formal constitution or a combination of written and unwritten constitutional elements. Israel, for instance, has no formal constitution, relying instead on Basic Laws and unwritten conventions. The United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand also lack a single, formal, written constitution, instead drawing on a variety of written and unwritten sources, including acts of parliament, court decisions, and unwritten traditions. Andorra did not have a codified constitution until 1993, and Thailand had an uncodified constitution prior to 1932.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Countries without a written constitution | Israel, UK, Canada, New Zealand, China |
| Countries without a codified constitution | Andorra (until 1993), Thailand (until 1932) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Israel
The Israeli Declaration of Independence, which was announced on 14 May 1948, stated that a formal constitution would be formulated and adopted no later than 1 October 1948. However, the Constituent Assembly, which convened in February 1949, failed to reach an agreement on a constitution. Instead, it adopted the Transition Law, which set many of the ground rules and transformed the assembly into the "First Knesset".
The Basic Laws of Israel are fourteen quasi-constitutional laws that deal with the formation and role of the principal institutions of the state, the relations between the state's authorities, and the protection of civil rights in Israel. They were intended to be draft chapters of a future Israeli constitution, which has been postponed since 1950. The Basic Laws do not cover all constitutional issues, and there is no deadline set for the completion of the process of merging them into one comprehensive constitution.
There have been several reasons proposed for Israel's lack of a formal constitution. One view is that the country's fluid identity and refusal to identify its borders have contributed to the delay. Another factor is the influence of Orthodox groups, who oppose a secular constitution, arguing that the Torah, the Jewish holy book, defines what Israel is. Additionally, Israel's early leadership modelled their government on the British system, which also lacks a written constitution.
Critics argue that Israel's democratic nature would be better protected by adopting a formal written constitution. In recent years, there have been calls from civil society and opposition figures for the codification of the Basic Laws into a formal constitution, particularly during the 2023 anti-judicial reform protests. However, some experts note that even with a constitution in place, there would still be challenges regarding interpretation and enforcement.
Florida LLC Managers: Business or Employee?
You may want to see also
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is one of only five countries without a written constitution. It does, however, have a constitution that is spread across several places, including specific Acts of Parliament, constitutional conventions, and decisions made by judges. This is due to the UK's unique history, which did not involve a revolution or political rupture that would have necessitated a written constitution. Instead, the UK's political system evolved gradually over time, allowing for a more pragmatic and flexible approach to governance.
The UK's constitution is known as an uncodified constitution, meaning there is no single document that serves as the country's fundamental law. This makes it distinct from most other modern liberal democracies, which typically have a written constitution with special legal status. While the UK lacks a codified constitution, it does have a collection of written and unwritten arrangements that establish the country's principles and political body. These include the Treaty of Union in 1706 and the Acts of Union in 1707, which united the Kingdoms of England, Wales, and Scotland, as well as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The UK's uncodified constitution has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it allows for greater flexibility and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Proponents argue that this enables a more pragmatic approach to governance, where different ideas can be tried and developed over time. It also allows each successive generation to influence the constitution through their elected representatives, which some believe makes it more democratic.
However, critics argue that the lack of a written constitution in the UK leads to an excessively powerful government that is not legally constrained by the observance of fundamental rights. They point to the reduction in checks on governmental power and the lack of an effective separation of powers as evidence of this. Additionally, the uncodified nature of the UK's constitution can make it more difficult to identify and understand, as it is spread across various sources.
While the UK has considered adopting a written constitution, with arguments presented by figures such as Lord Scarman, the country's unique historical context and political culture have led to the continuation of its uncodified constitution. This constitution has served as a model for other countries, such as Canada, which shares similarities with the UK's system at the federal level.
French Constitution Efforts: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Canada
The British North America Act of 1867, now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, codified many constitutional rules for Canada, but major changes to the Constitution could only be made by the United Kingdom Parliament. In 1931, Canada's federal and provincial governments could not agree on how they would pass future amendments to the British North America Act. As a result, Canada asked Britain to maintain the power to amend Canada's Constitution until Canadians could agree on their own formula.
In 1982, the Charter was enacted as part of Canada's Constitution, along with a set of procedures allowing the Constitution to be amended in Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982, gave Canada complete independence from Britain. The Constitution Act, 1867, authorized Parliament to establish a general court of appeal for Canada and other courts to better administer the laws of the country.
The Constitution's Core Purpose: A Nation's Foundation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
New Zealand
While it is unclear exactly how many countries do not have a constitution, some sources suggest that there are five countries without a written constitution, including Israel, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.
The Treaty of Waitangi, which was first put into statute in 1975, is also considered a founding document of the government of New Zealand. It has been the subject of much debate, as it has no inherent legal status but is treated in various statutes and is increasingly seen as an important source of constitutional law. The Treaty accords special recognition to Māori rights and interests, and autonomous Māori institutions have a role within the wider constitutional and political system.
War Powers Act: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Andorra (until 1993)
Andorra, a small country nestled in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, lacked a formal constitution until 1993. Up until that point, the country was governed by a set of basic laws known as the Andorran paréages, which dated back to the 13th century (specifically, 1278 and 1288). These paréages served as the foundation of Andorra's governance system for centuries, but they did not provide a clear separation of powers.
The absence of a modern constitution meant that Andorra's political system lacked the defined structure and rights protections that a constitution typically provides. This changed in the early 1990s when the country embarked on a journey towards constitutional reform. On February 2, 1993, the Consell, in a solemn session, adopted a new constitution for Andorra. This constitution was then put to a referendum, where it was approved by the Andorran people on March 14, 1993.
The 1993 Constitution of Andorra brought about significant changes to the country's governance. It established a diarchy, with the Bishop of Urgell and the President of France serving as joint heads of state. This unique arrangement is reflected in the country's official name, "Principat d'Andorra". The constitution also recognised the sovereignty of the Andorran people and affirmed their rights and freedoms, including the right to associate for lawful purposes, the right to form political parties, and the right to own property. It provided for a fair taxation system and guaranteed the conservation and development of Andorra's cultural heritage.
Furthermore, the 1993 Constitution addressed the structure of the judiciary, ensuring its independence. It established a Constitutional Tribunal, which serves as the supreme authority for interpreting the Constitution, with its decisions binding on both public powers and private individuals. The Constitution also outlined the function of communes within Andorra and the structure of the country's court system, including the appointment process and term lengths for judges.
The adoption of the 1993 Constitution marked a pivotal moment in Andorra's history, transitioning the country from a system of basic laws to a modern constitutional framework that enshrined the rights of its citizens and established a clear separation of powers. This process demonstrates how countries can evolve their governance structures to meet the needs and aspirations of their people, even after centuries of stability under an older system.
Amending the Constitution: Process Maintenance
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
As of 2025, 5 countries do not have a written constitution.
The United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, and New Zealand do not have a written constitution. Andorra did not have a constitution until 1993.
Countries without a written constitution often have alternative frameworks, rooted in historical traditions, legal precedents, or uncodified agreements. For example, the UK's political system evolved over time, so it is continuously being defined by acts of parliament and decisions of the courts.
Critics argue that Israel's democratic nature would be better protected if the country had a formal, written constitution.
