Simone Lawson
A federal constitution is a type of government structure where power is shared between the central government and the states or regions in a country. While many countries have a federal constitution, some do not. For example, France does not operate a federal constitution. Additionally, some countries, like the United Kingdom, Israel, and New Zealand, have uncodified constitutions, which are made up of rules found in various documents rather than a single official written constitution. Canada's constitution is also considered uncodified, although there is some debate on this.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Country that does not operate a federal constitution | France |
| Countries with an uncodified constitution | United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Sweden (as of 2021) |
| Countries with a codified constitution | United States of America, Switzerland, China |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
France does not operate a federal constitution
A federal constitution is a type of government structure where power is shared between the central government and the states or regions in a country. France is one of the countries that do not operate a federal constitution. Instead, France has a semi-presidential system with a written constitution.
The current French constitution, the Fifth Republic, was established on October 4, 1958, and direct presidential elections were introduced in 1962. The constitution provides for the election of the president and parliament, the selection of the government, and the powers of each. It also establishes a shared law-making power between the legislative branch and the executive branch, headed by the president and the prime minister appointed by the president. The legislative branch held the law-making powers in previous constitutions.
The French constitution has been amended several times. In 2000, the constitution was amended to shorten the president's term of office from seven years to five, coinciding with the term of parliament. The presidential term limit was further amended in 2002, limiting the president to two consecutive terms. The constitution also allows for the temporary delegation of parliament's constitutional law-making power to the government in specific subject areas and for a defined period.
While France does not have a federal constitution, it is important to note that different countries have different forms of government structures. France's semi-presidential system, with its unique power-sharing dynamics between the president and the prime minister, is an example of one such alternative form of government.
The Post Office: A Constitutional Guarantee?
You may want to see also
Canada's constitution is a combination of written acts and unwritten conventions
Canada's constitution is unique in that it is a combination of written acts and unwritten conventions. It is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world, and its constitution outlines the system of government, civil and human rights of citizens and non-citizens, and the division of sovereignty (federalism).
Canada's constitution is influenced by its historical ties to the United Kingdom, and its preamble declares it to be "similar in principle" to the UK's uncodified constitution. This means that while Canada has core written documents, such as the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly the British North America Act 1867) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it also has unwritten, legally binding rules of constitutional practice known as conventions. These conventions are an essential part of the constitution, even though they are not judicially enforceable.
The unwritten aspects of Canada's constitution include pre-Confederation acts and Aboriginal rights and Crown treaties with First Nations, such as historic "numbered" treaties and modern land-claims agreements. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that the constitution includes these unwritten components, and they are just as important as the written text. These unwritten constitutional conventions can hold as much sway as the letter of the law, even if they are not usually legally enforceable.
Canada's constitution is also notable for its explicit recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples and its commitment to reducing regional inequalities. The Constitution Act, 1982, for example, includes the Proclamation of 1763, which recognizes Aboriginal rights and Crown treaties with First Nations. This recognition has been further developed over time, with Article 35 of the Constitution Act affirming existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Trademark Usage: Preventing Abandonment with Active Use
You may want to see also
The UK has an uncodified constitution
The United Kingdom's constitution is uncodified, meaning that its fundamental rules take the form of customs, usage, precedent, statutes, and legal instruments. While the UK's constitution is largely written, it is spread across different documents and has never been codified into a single text. This is in contrast to most other countries, which have codified constitutions produced in response to major historical turning points such as independence or revolution. However, the UK is not unique in this regard, as New Zealand and Israel also lack codified constitutions.
The UK's uncodified constitution has several implications. Firstly, it means that there is no single, entrenched source of constitutional law, and constitutional rules can be amended or repealed by simple majority votes in Parliament like any other legislation. This flexibility can be advantageous, facilitating changes such as the introduction of the Human Rights Act, devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and the creation of the Supreme Court. However, critics argue that the lack of a codified constitution makes the political system more vulnerable to abuse and makes it harder for citizens to understand their government's powers and responsibilities.
The UK's uncodified constitution also means that there is no clear separation of powers, and parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to overrule fundamental rights. This has led some scholars to argue that the UK's constitution is to some extent a "façade." The lack of a clear distinction between constitutional and regular law further contributes to the perception of ambiguity in the UK's constitutional framework.
Supporters of the UK's uncodified constitution argue that it allows each successive generation to influence the constitution through their elected representatives. They also contend that it is preferable for elected politicians, rather than unelected judges, to have the final say in constitutional matters. Additionally, the absence of a codified constitution does not imply the absence of constitutional principles. The UK's Supreme Court and its predecessor, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, have recognized and affirmed principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
Understanding Shift Variances: Time Period Analysis
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Israel operates under an unwritten constitution
Israel is one of only a few countries in the world that operates without a written constitution. Instead, Israel has a series of Basic Laws that act as quasi-constitutional laws. These laws were intended to be draft chapters of a future Israeli constitution, which has been postponed since 1950.
The Basic Laws 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. Many of these laws are based on the individual liberties outlined in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. While these laws provide a framework for governance, Israel's constitution is considered unwritten or uncodified.
The absence of a written constitution in Israel is a result of the country's inability to reach a consensus on its content. When Israel was established in 1948, its Declaration of Independence mandated that a constitution would be written within five months. However, those tasked with drafting the constitution could not agree on its content, and Israel has now gone over 75 years without a formal written constitution.
The debate surrounding Israel's lack of a written constitution has resurfaced in light of proposed controversial judicial reforms. Some critics argue that Israel's democratic nature would be better protected by a formal written constitution, rather than relying solely on the Basic Laws. They point to the potential for undemocratic abuses of power if the country does not adopt a formal constitution.
While Israel does not have a single, codified constitution, its system of government is influenced by various laws, precedents, and conventions. The Basic Laws, along with other statutes and legal instruments, provide a degree of constitutional framework for the country. However, the absence of a formal written constitution in Israel highlights the challenges of achieving a social consensus in a country with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests.
Foundations of Freedom: Guarding Tyranny with the Constitution
You may want to see also
New Zealand has no single constitutional document
The Constitution Act 1986 is a key formal statement of New Zealand's system of government, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The Act also recognises the King as the Head of State of New Zealand and the Governor-General as his representative. However, there is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law", and no law is accorded higher status.
The New Zealand constitution is an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources. Other sources of the constitution include the Treaty of Waitangi, which is increasingly seen as a founding document of the government in New Zealand, and unwritten traditions and conventions. The constitution establishes that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, has a parliamentary system of government, and is a representative democracy.
The New Zealand Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. This is in contrast to codified constitutions, where there are often special procedures for making constitutional laws that are inherently superior to other legislation.
The Constitution: Living or Dead?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
France.
Some sources claim that Canada does not have a federal constitution. However, others state that it does, and that it consists of the Canada Act 1982, Constitution Act 1867, their amendments, and the acts and orders contained in Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution, meaning that its constitutional rules are not written in a single document.
An uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules take the form of customs, usage, precedent, statutes, and legal instruments. These rules are written down in various official documents but are not codified in a single document.
Israel, New Zealand, and historically, Hungary.
