• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should Britain adopt a written constitution?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐One must understand that most of the countries now have a written and a codified Constitution, such as the United States of the America, Malaysia, India, Australia and etc. As we know these countries are under the British colonies before getting their independence. Hence now there are only three states in the world which lacks a written constitution, namely Britain, New Zealand, and Israel. A constitution is a set of rules which defines the structures and functions of a state, particularly, will define the principle of institutions, the legislature, the executive, judiciary and the nature and the scope of their powers. Moreover, Bradley and Ewing have defined a constitution as ? a document having special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and the principle functions of the organs of government within the state and declares the principles by which those organs must operate?. (A Bradley and K Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th edn, Pearson/Longman, 2007), p.4) [1]In the introduction of a state?s constitution, there will be a discovery of a preamble, for example, in the USA the preamble states that: ?We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution?. (Article 2 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution.)[2] This shows the society as a sovereign power. An important question that often rises is ?Should Britain adopts a written constitution?? ...read more.


They also apologized about the flight they hijacked to Stansted in 2000. The High Court had granted permission to stay however, Tony Blair did not. He said that it was an ?abuse of common sense?. (BBC News UK, 2006)[6] Lord Woolf had mentioned that, ?growing encroachment by the government on judicial independence is a warning that judges may need a written constitution to protect them from further political reference?. This happens to be one of the reasons to codify the constitution. Judges and the Courts are not seen to be supreme compared to the parliament and its decision is not binding. This diminishes the role and purpose of the courts. Lord Alexander states that the European Courts of Human Rights should be contained in the constitution as well to avoid trouble of going all the way to Strasbourg which occupies money and time. With a written constitution, the society would be able to identify their rights easily and not having to go through the hassle of collecting several documents to learn their rights. Lastly, many things are left to be understood and learnt about conventions and so on. The problems of having a ?codified constitution in the United Kingdom However, there are some problems the current government may have to deal with when codifying its constitution. ...read more.


In addition, if the European Convention of Human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998 has not been enacted into the UK then these could be argued for the codification of the UK constitution, hence since the ?ECHR? are effective in the Britain there is no point of having a codification. According to Professor Feldman ?ECHR possesses a special status? and the establishment of the Human Rights Act 1998 are therefore very much sufficient to be a good alternative to a codification to the Britain.[13] In conclusion, it doesn?t mean of adopting a Codified Constitution has no value, they do provide some indication of what supposed to happen and who are ruled by the Constitutions, but I seriously think that British don?t really need a Codified Constitution since it has a very good stability hence no one?s who has ever complained about the UK, hence although it is not codified, the Acts of parliament, Common Law, Human Rights Acts 1998 they do fill the in the gaps and so on to the future?..Britain is unique in its own way, let?s not destroy it for the younger generations? Therefore I would like to agree with the statement of V Bogdanor and S Vogenauer; Enacting a British Constitution: some problems?, 2008. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How effective is the British Constitution in protecting the rights of its citizens?

    3 star(s)

    An elitist party is a party whose ordinary members have less of a say in decision making, this is infringing on that person's right to freedom of expression as dictated by the civil rights. An elitist party also has an under-representation of women and ethnic minorities which infringes on the human right of protection from discrimination.

  2. Discuss the case for and against a Written Constitution for the UK.

    In contrast, in the US, the legal rules relating to this issue would fall under the First Amendment to the Constitution; Roth v US (1957). The subject of pornography in the US may be classified as a clearly constitutional issue.

  1. Government & Politics Revision Notes

    used; there can be a variation in the degree of proportionality achieved. Factors that may vary form system to system include the number of representatives elected in each constituency, the presence of preferential voting, and whether voters choose form a list of candidates or simply choose a party.

  2. What, If Anything, Would Be Achieved By The United Kingdom Adopting A Codified Constitution?

    An example is given by the fact that before the Republic of Ireland could join the European Communities, a constititutional amendment had to be approved by the means of a referendum. This lengthy process was not effective in the United Kingdom, where, whilst the European Communities Act was debated by

  1. rights and their limitations

    This has led to the controversial issue of whether all countries should have the right to go nuclear. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there are five official nuclear powers, namely America, France, Britain, Russia and China, along with three other 'unofficial' states who are India, Pakistan and Israel.

  2. Assess whether or not the United Kingdom should adopt a codified constitution?

    A codified would create less confusion about the meaning of the terms of the constitution and would ensure a greater chance of these rules being enforced. For example it could be argued that with a constitutional reform, the sovereign powers would be outlined clearly, defining the relationship between Westminster and the devolved assemblies.

  1. Discuss the case for and against a written constitution for the UK

    Their rules are rigid and cannot change with the modernization of society and ever-changing political and economic background. Laws in UK can be easily changed and this could be easily done by a simple majority from the votes of parliament members.

  2. Should the UK codify its Constitution or not?

    One of the strongest features of an un-codified constitution is its adaptability and ease of amendment, allowing it to remain relevant to modern times, as governments will change over time as will society. Something that a codified constitution could not offer, even if the majority wanted a law to be

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work