The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia
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
This paper will deal with the common law legal system as a legal transplant, focusing on the reception of the common law in South East Asian jurisdictions, before comparing it with that of East Asian India to analyse how the common law functions and evolv
Introduction This paper will deal with the common law legal system as a legal transplant, focusing on the reception of the common law in South East Asian jurisdictions, before comparing it with that of East Asian India to analyse how the common law functions and evolves as a legal transplant. We will start with an analysis of the historical, socio-cultural and political contexts of the respective countries, from which we can assess the extent of reception in each of these and the resultant issues that arise. Finally we will attempt to arrive at an understanding of the common law as a legal transplant, how it is beneficial and why it evolves differently in the respective countries. Legal Systems as Legal Transplants The term "legal transplants" was coined by Alan Watson to refer to "the moving of a rule... from one country to another, or from one people to another". This involves the spread of cultural items between individuals in the "continual mass borrowing... of rules" which Watson asserts is "the most fertile source of legal development". Watson's theory of legal transplants has been met with great criticism, from being "flawed" with "unconvincing" empirical evidence to "not [being] a theory at all"1. Some insist that legal transplants are impossible, as proponents of legal transplants must accept that law is simply a body of rules, and these rules are bare
Role of The Ombudsman
PUBLIC LAW 1: ASSIGMENT 2 971 Words An essay on the ombudsmen _____________________________________________________ This essay considers the role of ombudsmen in resolving disputes in contrast to the role played by the judiciary. In answering this question it will be noted that the ombudsman system does not overlap with the judiciary, but rather, it closes the gaps created by the judiciary. It will be argued that although the system has advantages over the judiciary, it also has limitations. Though the question refers to ombudsmen in general, the essay will make reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in discussing the role played by ombudsmen how this role may be improved. Introduction The ombudsman has emerged as an effective method of dispute resolution in today's world. Its ideologies have been accepted widely as an attractive alternative to litigation. Consequently, it provides the public with remedial action where none is available through courts. Unlike courts, the ombudsman's services are cost effective, flexible, and informal. These qualities have contributed to its success in seeking justice against bad decisions. The origin The ombudsman concept has existed since the 19th century. Sweden was the first country to introduce an 'ombudsman' whose role was to investigate complaints from ordinary citizens.1 However, it wasn't until 1967
Discuss the relevance of the concept of the rule of law to current constitutional arrangements in the UK
"In the mouth of British Constitutional Lawyer, the term "rule of law" seems to mean primary a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order". (TRS Allan). In the light of the quote above, I am going to discuss the relevance of the concept of the rule of law to current constitutional arrangements in the UK. I will be looking at the current constitution in the UK, the doctrine of the rule of law and the relevance of the doctrine in the operation of state power. The UK is said to have an "unwritten constitution", because it has no single codified documentary constitution. However most of the constitution does exist in the written form of treaties, statutes and court judgements. Due to the absence of a formal written constitution in the UK, there is no positive statement of the basic principles governing state actions and no guidelines that could be used to assess the legitimacy of government action. Lawyers and politicians have used the concept of the rule of law in order to provide such a measure.1 The rule of law is capable of being interpreted differently by different people. It is a recognised principle of the English constitution, which is frequently used to signify a notion of "law and order". At it's broadest it is a framework that constrains arbitrary use of power. The concept of the rule of law dates
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER Firstly, in order to provide an adequate evaluation, 'constitutional conventions' and the 'executive' must be defined. The 'executive' can de described as the section of the state that creates policy and is responsible for the operation of those policies (Barnett, 2002). Therefore in formal terms the sovereign is the head of the executive although in practice this position lies primarily with the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and other ministers, followed by those in the Police and the armed forces. Whilst most countries have a written constitution to define the rules, regulations and practices of an executive, Britain (along with Israel and New Zealand) has no such document. It thus follows that formal protections against the exercise of power which exist in those countries with a written constitution do not exist in Britain (Bradley and Ewing, 2003). Instead, the British constitution has three sources of rules: Acts of Parliament; judicial precedent; and non legal rules known as constitutional conventions, (Allen and Thompson, 2002). A.V. Dicey (1965) defines constitutional conventions as: "...understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, of the
In what ways is the United States constitution a conservative document? What might have been the mot
In what ways is the United States constitution a conservative document? What might have been the mot The United States Constitution has been a cornerstone of the United States political system since its ratification in 1789. It has remained largely unaltered and continues to have a significant effect on political life. It is largely a conservative document in terms of its content. It can however be viewed as quite radical when it is noted that it was a pioneering document instilling a system of government with many new ideas. In this essay, I will firstly define what I mean by conservative; I will then explain some of the reasons why the document is conservative; I will go on to show how the document is in fact quite radical and it is only by our modern ideas about conservatism that it appears so; I will then examine the problems and influences which led the document to take the form that it did. The term 'conservative' can be taken in many ways. In this essay, it will essentially be taken to mean restrictive of any change or action which could be considered radical. Therefore, conservative ideas attempt to maintain the current political order and keep the system stable. With this in mind, the United States Constitution can be viewed in two ways. The document today looks very conservative and restrictive of change, but in 1789 it was very radical. "The Framers have undergone
UK constitution
"The adoption of a [written constitution] would be a hazardous affair; it... risks forcing through unpopular or concealed changes to the constitution, it risks shifting political power from democratic institutions towards the judiciary" N.W. Barber "Against a written constitution" (2008) public law 11 at p.11 Explain and evaluate the arguments for and against a written constitution for the UK, taking into account the significant issues raised by the quotation above. Explain and defend your own view. This essay is going to explore and investigate the arguments both, for and against the adoption of a written constitution within the United Kingdom. First it is necessary to define what a constitution is and what the UK's constitution consists of. A constitution is broadly described as being a body of rules and responsibilities if the major organs and officers of government and with the relations between them. [1]In a narrower sense a constitution refers to a single document or written statement of a state's or country's constitutional rules in a documentary or codified form [2] . Britain is often mistakenly referred to as having an unwritten constitution which is misleading and would be untrue to say that the UK does not possess a written constitution; as strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in the written documents such as Acts of parliaments.[3] Unlike
Parliamentary sovereignty. " Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General . Discuss
'Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute ... It is no longer right to say that [Parliament's] freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified'. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, per Lord Hope of Craighead). At the heart of the British Constitution lies the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of the parliament is predominantly defined by Dicey as: "Parliament having the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"1. Further Dicey stated that there are three key rules that need to be followed for the Parliament to be absolutely sovereign and these are the following: Parliament can make or unmake any law; Parliament cannot bind its successors and most importantly that no one can question Parliament's laws. Historically the principle received statutory recognition in the Bill of Rights 16892 where it was stated: ""That the pretended power of super sending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority without
Parliamentary Supremacy - the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion.
In the year of 1973, the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community. Twenty years later, the UK signed the Treaty on European Union (or Maastricht Treaty) and became a member state of the European Union1[MD1]. Being a highly controversial and debated topic, the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion. Parliamentary supremacy is a key principle of the British constitution that is based on the concept that Parliament is the supreme maker of English legislation and has the power to make or unmake any law they see fit.2 Whether these laws were morally or politically improper, did not matter as Parliamentary supremacy permitted Parliament to make such laws and they would still be held valid (Madzimbamuto)3. The constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey had very strong views on Parliamentary sovereignty and described it as 'the keystone of the law of the Constitution'. He believed that since the laws which were passed through Parliament were subject to intense scrutiny, it would be ensured that only good laws would make it through Parliament. In effect, these laws made by Parliament were not restricted by neither content nor territorial region.4 This idea was utilised by Sir Ivor Jennings who gave the well-known example of Parliament
There is no absolute separation of powers in this country, in a variety of important ways ideas of the separation of powers have shaped constitutional arrangements and influenced our constitutional thinking, and continue to do so" Discuss.
"While we must grant that there is no absolute separation of powers in this country, in a variety of important ways ideas of the separation of powers have shaped constitutional arrangements and influenced our constitutional thinking, and continue to do so." Discuss, including consideration of relevant caselaw. The separation of powers is at the heart of a democratic constitution as it ensures that no one body accumulates too much power as to simply dictate to the people, as Lord Acton said 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely' Although within the UK the separation of powers is not as clear as in other liberal democracies, it does still influence the everyday operations of the executive, legislature and judiciary1. As Barnett argued 'Separation of powers...runs like a thread throughout the constitution of the United Kingdom'2 The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. As Montesquieu argued 'All would be lost if the same man or the same ruling body...were to exercise these three powers'3 This interpretation of the separation of powers has been put into effect in the vast majority of liberal democracies around the world with the likes of the USA and Japan adhering to the orthodox understanding of the
![Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/888953/listing/888953_1.jpg)