Malcolm Rivera
Several countries around the world do not have a written constitution, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and Qatar. These countries instead rely on a combination of written and unwritten sources, such as statutes, court decisions, and conventions, to establish their legal and political principles. While some countries, like Israel, have a series of Basic Laws that serve as quasi-constitutional laws, others, like the United Kingdom, have an uncodified constitution that has evolved over time through acts of parliament and court decisions. The lack of a written constitution in these countries has sparked debates and efforts towards judicial reforms to address potential democratic vulnerabilities and promote a unified ethos.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| No single constitutional document | New Zealand, United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Saudi Arabia |
| No codified constitution | Andorra (until 1993) |
| No written constitution | New Zealand, United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Saudi Arabia |
| No formal written constitution | Israel |
| No legally binding written constitution | Saudi Arabia |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Israel has no written constitution, but has several Basic Laws
- Saudi Arabia has no legally binding written constitution
- The UK has an unwritten constitution, with no single defining document
- Canada has no written constitution
- New Zealand has no single constitutional document, but an unwritten constitution
Israel has no written constitution, but has several Basic Laws
Israel is one of only five countries without a written constitution, along with Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. When Israel was established in 1948, its Declaration of Independence mandated that a constitution would be written within five months. However, those responsible for drafting the constitution could not agree, and Israel has now gone 75 years without a formal written constitution. Instead, Israel has a series of Basic Laws—quasi-constitutional laws that were originally intended as the basis for the eventual constitution.
The Basic Laws cover government arrangements and human rights. They include the Freedom of Occupation Law, entrenched to require a 61 MK majority to amend under section 7, and the Human Dignity and Freedom Law, which requires the Knesset to explicitly declare its intent to violate the law. In 1995, the Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak ruled that the Basic Laws should be considered the state's constitution, and this became the common approach throughout his tenure. Barak's decision gave the High Court the power to strike down legislation that contradicted a Basic Law, broadening constitutional protections even without a formal written constitution.
However, critics argue that Israel's democratic nature would be better protected by a formal written constitution. Moves from the Knesset to limit and override the High Court's power of judicial review have led to concerns about potential undemocratic abuses of power without a formal constitution in place. Opponents of treating the Basic Laws as a constitution include Barak's colleague, Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin, and former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Ben-Gurion believed a written constitution would allow the Israeli Supreme Court to overrule his socialist policies and entrench the existing proportional representation system.
Despite the lack of a formal written constitution, Israel's political system has evolved over time, similar to the UK, which also has an uncodified constitution. The UK's constitution is defined by acts of parliament and decisions of the courts, with various written and unwritten sources contributing to its constitution.
Texas Constitution: Similarities to Other Former State Constitutions
You may want to see also
Saudi Arabia has no legally binding written constitution
Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the world without a legally binding written constitution. Instead, the Quran, the religious text of Islam, is considered the country's constitution. In 1960, King Faisal declared that the Quran and the Sunnah, or the practice of Prophet Muhammad, constitute the country's constitution. This stance is reflected in Article 1 of the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, which was adopted by royal decree in 1992. The Basic Law provides guidelines for governing and outlines the rights and responsibilities of citizens. However, it is not a legally binding document, and the country's laws and policies are primarily based on Islamic law or Sharia.
The absence of a written constitution in Saudi Arabia has significant implications for the country's legal and political system. Sharia law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah, serves as the primary source of legislation. This religious framework influences various aspects of life in Saudi Arabia, including the stipulation that all women must have a male legal guardian. While women no longer legally require permission to work or study, employers and universities often demand consent as a prerequisite. The influence of Sharia law extends beyond personal freedoms, as seen in the Basic Law, where Article 7 proclaims the rights of the monarch, and Article 8 mandates that "justice, consultation, and equality" be administered per Sharia tenets.
The kingdom's political dynamics are also shaped by factors beyond a written constitution. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the Saud dynasty, whose influence extends beyond the royal family to various government posts. Major policy decisions are typically made within the royal family, influenced by religious scholars ('ulama'), tribal sheikhs, and prominent commercial families. The country is divided into 13 administrative regions, each presided over by a regional governor, usually a royal family member. These governors work alongside municipal councils, a mix of appointed and elected members, to manage finance, health, education, agriculture, and municipalities.
The lack of a binding written constitution in Saudi Arabia has been a subject of debate. Some critics argue that a formal constitution could help foster a unified ethos within the country, similar to the calls for a written constitution in Israel, another country without a binding constitution. However, proponents of the current system in Saudi Arabia emphasize the Quran and Sharia law as the foundational pillars of the nation, resisting any countervailing regulations or laws. Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz's statement reinforces this view, asserting that there cannot be "a constitution, a regulation, or a law that runs counter to the Islamic Sharia" within the kingdom.
While Saudi Arabia operates without a legally binding written constitution, it has adopted the Basic Law, which serves as a framework for governance and citizen rights. The kingdom's legal and political landscape is predominantly shaped by Sharia law and the influence of the royal family, with policy decisions reflecting a consensus of opinion within these circles. The cultural and religious views in Saudi Arabia prioritize the Quran and Sunnah as the ultimate sources of guidance, shaping the country's societal norms and legal framework.
Why the Constitution Was Built This Way
You may want to see also
The UK has an unwritten constitution, with no single defining document
The United Kingdom is one of only five countries without a written constitution, along with Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Canada, and Israel. The UK's constitution is instead a collection of laws, conventions, and traditions that have developed over time. This is because the UK's political system evolved gradually, without any sudden changes or revolutions that would have required a written constitution to be established. As a result, the UK's constitution is spread across various sources, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (constitutional conventions), and decisions made by judges.
The UK's unwritten constitution includes written laws and "conventions," or unwritten agreements, around "the things that are done and the things that are not done." These conventions are harder to define precisely and lack legal force, but they are an integral element of the constitution. For example, the convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of the House of Commons able to command the confidence of that institution is not a legally binding rule but is nonetheless important for the functioning of the government.
While the UK does not have a single constitutional document, there are some written sources that are considered part of the constitution. These include the Magna Carta, which dates back to 1215, and more recent acts such as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. These acts have special constitutional status and help define the UK's political system.
Proponents of a codified constitution in the UK argue that it would strengthen the legal protection of democracy and freedom. However, opponents believe that a country's identity and principles should not be based solely on a founding document. The UK's unwritten constitution allows for flexibility and adaptability in the country's system of government, and any changes to it can be made through simple majority votes in Parliament.
In summary, the UK's constitution is unique in that it is not contained in a single document but is instead a collection of written and unwritten sources that have evolved over time. This unwritten constitution has enabled the UK's political system to be flexible and easily adaptable to change.
The EU's Influence on the UK Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Canada has no written constitution
Canada, Israel, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are the five countries without a written constitution. Canada's constitution is an amalgamation of various codified acts, treaties between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples, uncodified traditions, and conventions. It is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world.
The Constitution of Canada, or Constitution du Canada in French, is the supreme law in Canada. It outlines Canada's system of government and the civil and human rights of citizens and non-citizens. The Constitution comprises core written documents and provisions that are constitutionally entrenched, take precedence over all other laws, and place substantive limits on government action. These include the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867), and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes Canada as a constitutional monarchy and provides for a constitution similar in principle to the largely unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. It authorized the Parliament to establish a general court of appeal for Canada and any additional courts to better administer the laws of Canada. The Federal Courts, the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada were established under this authority.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, is the constitutional guarantee of the civil rights and liberties of every citizen in Canada, such as freedom of expression, religion, and mobility. It also addresses the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada and is written in plain language to ensure accessibility to the average citizen.
Unlike in most federations, Canadian provinces do not have written provincial constitutions. Provincial constitutions are instead a combination of uncodified constitutions, provisions of the Constitution of Canada, and provincial statutes. The overall structures of provincial governments are described in parts of the Constitution of Canada.
Canada's constitution has evolved over time, with the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, fundamentally changing much of Canadian constitutional law. The act also codified many previously oral constitutional conventions and made the amendment of the constitution more difficult.
Exploring the Constitution: Section 51's Powers
You may want to see also
New Zealand has no single constitutional document, but an unwritten constitution
New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world without a single constitutional document. Instead, it has an unwritten constitution, an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources.
The Constitution Act 1986 is a key statement of New Zealand's system of government, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. It also recognises the country's status as a constitutional monarchy, with the reigning monarch as the Head of State and the Governor-General as their representative. The Governor-General's powers are outlined in the Letters Patent, which have been revised and amended several times.
Other laws that detail the powers and functions of the government include the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Judicature Act 1908, and various other acts related to human rights, information, and finance. The Treaty of Waitangi, which is increasingly recognised as a founding document of the government in New Zealand, is also an important part of the country's constitution.
New Zealand's constitution also includes unwritten traditions and conventions, derived from the Westminster system. These conventions are based on the idea that "we are all in this together and we are all working for the benefit of everybody". This means that, in addition to written laws, there are also unwritten agreements around "the things that are done and the things that are not done".
New Zealand's unwritten constitution allows for flexibility and adaptability. The Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" by passing acts, giving it the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. However, some critics argue that a written constitution would provide clearer guidelines and protections, especially in times of crisis.
The Limits of Free Speech in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Israel, Canada, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom do not have a written constitution.
Israel does not have a formal written constitution. Instead, it has a series of Basic Laws—quasi-constitutional laws that were originally intended as the basis for the eventual constitution.
The UK does not have a single document that can be termed "the constitution". It has a collection of written documents and unwritten arrangements that establish the country's principles.
