The British Constitution: A Historical Foundation

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution embodied in a single document. Instead, its constitution is made up of various statutes, judicial precedents, conventions, treaties, and other sources. The foundational constitutional text for what is now the UK is the Magna Carta, issued by King John of England in 1215. The British constitutional theory is based on the belief that parliamentary sovereignty reflects the power of Parliament over the courts. This theory has been challenged and debated by constitutional scholars, political scientists, and legal practitioners. The UK's constitution has evolved over time, influenced by political, economic, and social changes, and continues to be a subject of discussion for potential reform.

Explore related products

Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and the United States 1607-1788

$21.87 $23.95

The Constitutional History of England

$53.31 $67

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Timeline of the British Monarchy

$20.79 $25.99

Constitutional History of the UK

$55.99 $69.99

The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

$7.99 $12.99

Parliamentary sovereignty

The British constitutional theory is based on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy. This principle, which is a part of the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies, asserts that the legislative body possesses absolute sovereignty and is superior to all other governmental institutions, be it executive or judicial bodies.

In the United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty is the cornerstone of the constitution. It grants Parliament the authority to create or repeal any law and no other Parliament or court can overrule its legislation. This means that the legislative body is not bound by written law, precedent, or even a constitution. However, it is important to note that over the years, Parliament has enacted laws that limit the scope of its own sovereignty.

The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in New Zealand is derived from that of the United Kingdom. In New Zealand, Parliament is unequivocally supreme, and the courts are tasked with interpreting and applying the laws enacted by Parliament. The judiciary in New Zealand does not have the authority to question the validity of properly enacted laws.

In Australia, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is nuanced due to the presence of both a federal constitution and state constitutions. While the Commonwealth Parliament is conferred the power to make laws, its authority is limited to specific subjects outlined in the constitution. The federal structure of Australia's government system also means that the legislative power of the states is inherently constrained by the federal constitution and Commonwealth powers.

Israel's political system exhibits certain characteristics of parliamentary sovereignty, such as the fusion of powers and a unicameral legislature. However, the Israeli Supreme Court has played a significant role in contesting the Knesset's supremacy, particularly regarding the exercise of judicial review over government actions.

Royal prerogative powers

The British constitutional theory evolved over time, with the constitution developing gradually in response to various crises. By the 20th century, the British monarchy had transformed into a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy, and Parliament became a representative body exercising parliamentary sovereignty.

The royal prerogative is a set of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognised in common law and, in some cases, civil law jurisdictions with a monarchy. It is associated with the monarch or "sovereign" and is considered the source of many of the British government's executive powers. The prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited, and its scope is challenging to define. While the monarch is regarded as the absolute authority, they typically exercise these powers on the advice of the government of the day, directly or through the Privy Council.

Historically, prerogative powers were exercised by the monarch independently, without requiring parliamentary consent. Since the 19th century, by convention, the monarch acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who are accountable to Parliament. The monarch retains the prerogative power to act against this advice, but this is typically reserved for emergencies or unique circumstances.

The royal prerogative powers can be categorised in various ways, and there are around 15 types. These include the power to:

• Create hereditary titles, confer honours, and create peers.
• Legislate by an Order in Council.
• Create and administer financial benefit schemes.
• Stop prosecutions or pardon convicted offenders through the Attorney General.
• Acquire new territories or alter the limits of British territorial waters.
• Expulsion of aliens and theoretical restraint of people from leaving the UK.
• Sign treaties, which must be laid before Parliament for 21 days before ratification.

The royal prerogative has been a central feature of governance in the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Great Britain, and, since 1801, the United Kingdom. It represents the discretionary power left in the hands of the Crown, whether exercised by the monarch or their ministers.

Judicial independence

The concept of judicial independence is a fundamental aspect of the British constitutional framework, which is based on the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. Judicial independence refers to the idea that the judiciary should be impartial and free from influence or interference by the executive or legislative branches of government.

In the British system, judicial independence is ensured through several key mechanisms. Firstly, judges are appointed through a rigorous selection process that emphasises merit and qualifications, ensuring that only individuals of the highest calibre are chosen. This merit-based appointment process helps to safeguard the judiciary from political interference and promotes impartiality.

Secondly, judicial salaries are protected by constitutional conventions and statutes, providing financial security and independence for judges. Secure tenure is also key, with judges typically serving until retirement age or voluntarily stepping down. This safeguards against external pressures or threats that could compromise their independence.

The principle of judicial immunity is crucial, protecting judges from legal repercussions for their judicial acts. This ensures they can make decisions without fear of litigation or personal liability, fostering an environment for impartial decision-making.

Additionally, the doctrine of judicial precedent, rooted in common law, reinforces independence. Lower courts follow higher court decisions, creating consistent law application, allowing judges to act independently within a stable, fair framework.

Physical and administrative independence is also vital, with courts and tribunals given resources and infrastructure to function effectively, independently of political influence, including budgetary autonomy.

In conclusion, judicial independence, safeguarded by these mechanisms, is integral to British constitutional theory, ensuring an impartial, fair justice system.

Explore related products

A Constitutional History of India, 1600-1935 (Routledge Library Editions: British in India Book 5)

$21.84 $66.99

The Thousand-Year Constitution of the United Kingdom: From Magna Carta to the Human Rights Act

$14.99 $9.99

The Constitutional History of England

$1.99 $44.9

The English Constitution: Unveiling the History of British Politics with an In-Depth Exploration of the English Legal System (Annotated)

$11.95

The Dependent Empire and Ireland, 1840-1900: Advance and Retreat in Representative Self-Government Select Documents on the Constitutional History of the British Empire and Commonwealth--Volume V (Documents in Imperial History)

$83

Constitutional Theory

$32.95 $32.95

Human rights

The concept of human rights has evolved over centuries and has been influenced by various cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions. British constitutional theory, which underpins the political and legal systems in the UK, has played a significant role in shaping the understanding and protection of human rights in the country and beyond.

One of the key foundations of British constitutional theory is the idea of natural law, which suggests that certain rights are inherent and inalienable. This notion of natural law can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy and Roman law, and it was later incorporated into Christian theology. The concept of natural law holds that there are universal moral principles that are inherent in human nature and that these principles supersede man-made laws. This idea has had a profound impact on the development of human rights, as it asserts that certain rights are natural and fundamental, and therefore, they cannot be taken away or denied by governments or other authorities.

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, is often cited as an important milestone in the development of human rights in Britain. This document, which was forced upon King John by a group of rebellious barons, established the principle that even the monarch was subject to the law and guaranteed certain liberties to the nobility, including the right to a fair trial and protection from unlawful imprisonment. While the Magna Carta did not directly apply to the common people, it set a precedent for limiting the power of the monarch and recognizing the rights and liberties of English subjects.

Building on these foundations, the English Bill of Rights (1689) emerged as another significant document in the history of human rights. This bill, enacted by the Parliament of England, outlined the rights and liberties of English citizens and limited the power of the monarch. It guaranteed the right to petition the monarch, freedom of speech in Parliament, and the right to bear arms, among other liberties. The English Bill of Rights also established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, asserting that Parliament, rather than the monarch, held supreme authority.

In more recent times, the Human Rights Act of 1998 further strengthened the protection of human rights in the UK. This legislation incorporated the rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights, making it easier for individuals to enforce their rights in British courts. The Act guarantees a range of civil and political rights, including the right to life, freedom from torture and slavery, freedom of thought and expression, and respect for private and family life.

The UK's approach to human rights has not been without criticism and debate. There are discussions about the lack of a written constitution, which could provide a more explicit and permanent guarantee of rights, and debates about balancing individual rights with national security, particularly in counter-terrorism. Nonetheless, the UK demonstrates its commitment to human rights through its legal system, international treaties, and independent institutions like the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The monarchy's role

The British monarchy has historically been the most important element of government, with the power to create hereditary titles, confer honours, create peers, legislate by Order in Council, create and administer financial benefits schemes, pardon convicted offenders, acquire more territory, expel aliens, sign treaties, and more.

By the 20th century, the British monarchy had transitioned to a constitutional and ceremonial role, with the Prime Minister exercising all prerogative powers, including leading the executive branch of the government. The monarch remains the official "head of state", but their role is largely governed by unwritten but binding conventions and the understanding that the powers of Parliament and the courts depend on a consensus of acceptance among officials.

Theoretical justifications for the monarchy's role have varied. In the sixteenth century, Scots such as George Buchanan articulated theories of constitutional monarchy and resistance, while James VI of Scotland advanced the theory of the divine right of kings.

In modern times, the monarchy's role is largely seen as a pragmatic necessity based on the practical need for mutual respect between Parliament and the courts. The monarchy's residual powers and relationship with Parliament are still governed by unwritten rules and conventions, which reflect the beliefs of officials about the power of Parliament vis-à-vis the courts.

Frequently asked questions