The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia

Authors Avatar

Constitutional Law

The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia

Introduction:

Constitutional law is concerned with the role and powers of the institutions within the state and with the relationship between the citizen and the state . Thus, it tends to concentrate on the relation between the primary organs of sovereign power (for example, Parliament and the judiciary) and the fundamental principles of constitutionalism, such as the rule of law.  All constitutional law presupposes the existence of a constitution, whether written or not.

A constitution sets out the relationship between individuals and the Government. It is a document that sets out necessary rules for the framework and operation of state institutions, for example defining the powers of the state and its agencies . Who can do what and where the limits of power are. This can only be of value if people feel an ownership of their constitution and other institutions are open and fair.

This essay will examine the constitutional law of the United Kingdom in comparison with the constitutional law of Russia. To do so a brief background and history will be discussed in order to explain how the current constitutional law of these two countries came about.

An Introduction to the United Kingdom and Russia's Constitution

Similarly, the study of constitution of the United Kingdom and Russia involves acquiring an understanding of variety of historical, legal, philosophical and political factors which have, over the centuries, shaped the organisation of these states. The United Kingdom appears to be almost unique in not having a constitution, which is conveniently set out in a single written document . Instead, it is comprised of Acts of Parliament, treaties, common law and European law, amongst others.

The Russian constitution, on the other hand is in a written format. The most important documents in the Russian constitutional law are the Constitutions adopted on 12 December 1993, the Declaration of Independence of Russia (12 June 1990), and the Federal Treaty (the treaty on allocation of subject matter jurisdiction and competence between the federal bodies of state power and bodies of state power of subunits of the Russian Federation 31 March 1992) . Nevertheless, under all constitutions, not all the rules will be written and collected within a single document.

Basic Structure of the United Kingdom

The UK is a unitary state and a constitutional monarchy. The monarch's role is basically ceremonial, with the queen or king taking decisions only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The latter is the most powerful figure in the executive, which is recruited from the legislature, Parliament. The Prime Minister appoints the cabinet, the body of ministers which formulates and applies government policy. All members of the cabinet support its collective decisions. This is known as the doctrine of responsibility . The cabinet is answerable to the Parliament, principally to the House of Commons. The Commons is an entirely elected body; the upper house, the House of Lords, is un-elected and, since reforms in the early 20th Century, can only delay legislation, not stop it.

The Constitution of United Kingdom

It is particularly true of the United Kingdom's constitution, which is more the product of evolution than conscious rational thought, that it is difficult to see clearly the demarcation lines between constitutional law, history, philosophy and political science . In order, therefore, to study the United Kingdom's constitution successfully, it is necessary to gain an insight into the history, politics and political philosophy which underpin the constitution.

In the absence of a written constitution, there are two kinds of sources of United Kingdom's constitutional law. Firstly, there are legal sources, such as legislation, the common law and EC law; and secondly, non-legal sources, notably convention, parliamentary rules and customs and the works of legal scholars .

United Kingdom's unwritten constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement about what it actually contains as it is made up of various conventions, stature laws and ancient documents. Constitutions are supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are maintained, and so a British written constitution would not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of executive, but also would prevent the power of the Government from being too centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the Government. Nonetheless, under the existing unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, there is no body that can authorise and legitimise the introduction of a written constitution. Parliament would first have many bills to declare that statute law and Acts are no longer valid, which would be immensely time consuming, and that is after a referendum has taken place to make sure the citizen all want a written constitution.

In the United Kingdom, by contrast with the state of Russia, the constitution is the product of many centuries of continuous and, mostly gradual, peaceful evolution. With the exception of the constitutional turmoil of the 17th century, the United Kingdom's constitutional development has an unbroken history dating from 1066 and so all the blue prints for a written constitution were discarded long ago . Furthermore, despite the two World Wars, Britain has been stable and has had a responsible government for hundreds of years.

Britain's unwritten constitution is therefore traditional, and if a written constitution is incorporated into British law, then people who believe the monarchy and the democratic system is old fashioned will demand abolishment or amendment. The power of the courts would also increase dramatically, which would mean that any disputes that occurred over relationships between the structure and powers of the government, citizens and government, and different parts of the government, would all have to be settled by judiciary as in Russia. Power and sovereignty then would travel from the elected executive to the un-elected judiciary and judges would be able to make political decisions such as make laws and declare actions unconstitutional, which is undemocratic and unjust.  Therefore there would be many problems that would pose threat to the United Kingdom if a written constitution were introduced.

Join now!

When studying the legislative supremacy of parliament, it is of fundamental importance to grasp that, in terms of classical constitutional legal theory, the power of Parliament in the absence of a written constitution is supreme or sovereign. However, the constitutional and legal fact that Parliament has the ultimate law making power within the State, does not mean that there are no restraints on what parliament may do. The law making powers of Parliament, while theoretically and legally unlimited, are in fact constrained by the electorate to which Parliament is accountable, and by economic, moral and political necessities .  In ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

A sensible if slightly disjointed structure. Overall, a very in depth response to this rather unusual question. The conclusion could have considered aspects of reform. Will the UK and Russian constitutions continue exist in their current form? 4 Stars.