How would you define the constitution of the United Kingdom?
HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM? In order to define our own constitution, it is primarily necessary to define what a constitution is in general. Typically, a constitution is viewed as a written document, outlining the framework of governmental institutions. Although the U.K. does not have such a constitution, a less rigid definition of a constitution tends to be used by those who believe that the U.K. does actually have a constitution which is effective in its own way, and to an extent, more so than written constitutions. The most notable feature of the U.K. constitution is that it is an 'unwritten constitution.' We are still able to attribute the title of 'constitution' to our arrangement if we use Wheare's definition of a constitution: 'a collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.' Problems begin to arise when written constitutional laws are required. In the U.K., the detail of our constitution lies in two places: parliamentary statute and judicial decisions. It can therefore be said that, to an extent, the constitution of the U.K. is in fact written down, but is just not collected in one document. We also find that there are possible benefits from this system. With a written constitution, when changes are required to reflect contemporary society, formal amendments to the constitution are required.
We come back to the question of what conventions are really... For example, are they merely the oil in the machine of the UKconstitution? Can they really be distinguished from laws and mere practise? Are they all of one type? Are they really binding?
"We come back to the question of what conventions are really... For example, are they merely the oil in the machine of the UK constitution? Can they really be distinguished from laws and mere practise? Are they all of one type? Are they really binding? In all, how can we know whether they really exist and what they really are? Conventions are one of the largest forms of constitutional rules which are not forms of law. These conventions help to supplement legal rules but are not actually laws themselves. Many conventions exist, and they supplement almost every part of the constitution, they are not legally binding but penalties do exist for breaking or not applying these conventions. Conventions are binding rules or principles that are often derived from politicians and their practises. Dicey has defined conventions as 'conventions, understandings, habits or practises which....regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power... are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts'. Dicey's definition is not completely accurate as an 'understanding, habit, or practise' does not give rise to the word 'obligation'. As a convention is an obligation, they cannot, truly and accurately, be compared to understandings, habits or practises. Although they are not enforced by courts, some people are bound by them in what they can and cannot do1. An
What is a 'Constitution'?
What is a 'Constitution'? The 'constitution' is usually the 'higher law' of any legal system - to a certain extent it is the the very law (usually contained in a single document) which constitutes, or brings into existence in the first place, a legal system. The constitution is the source from whence all particular or occasional laws derive their validity. It is the legal source of validity of particular laws. To a certain extent two ideas follow from this initial idea of 'validity'. * Firstly the constitution legitimises the particular and occasional laws of a legal system - it is the reason for the validity of the particular and occasional laws. It provides the 'legality' of the exercise of political power. * Secondly the constitution seems to inherently include an idea of the limitation of the arbitrary use of power in any society - there is a duty upon those who occupy state positions to act within the framework of the powers given, and in the manner specified by the constitution. The constitution will usually apportion out legal competence in any political society. These two principles go together. Those who are granted power by the constitution (say, to legislate - or 'make new law') will appeal to the constitution as the source of the legitimacy or justification of their exercise of this power. Similarly, since the constitution itself defines the scope and
Labour law of Uzbekistan: part-time workers
Contents Introduction............................................................................................................3 Background............................................................................................................3 Legislation scrutinized: part-time employees.....................................................................4 Off-hour employment v combining jobs ..............................................................4 Distinguishing features of off-time employment.....................................................6 a) Documents to be presented for off-hour employment.................................8 b) Annual paid leaves........................................................................9 c) Labour payment for an off-hour employment..........................................9 d) Termination of the labour contract on the initiative of an employer................9 Further findings...............................................................................10 Combining jobs and its distinct regulations..........................................................10 International protection of part-time employees......................................................11 Conclusion............................................................................................................12
How far, and in what ways, is it accurate to describe The British Constitution as differentiated?
How far, and in what ways, is it accurate to describe The British Constitution as differentiated? "Government without a Constitution is Power without Right" -Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1795)10 It is often difficult to describe exactly what a constitution is. There is no set way in which any country should be governed, and it is therefore very difficult to establish a common definition for the term. In 'The New British Politics,' I. Budge defines a constitution as 'enshrining in law the rights and duties of citizens and the functions and powers of the state and its major branches.'1 Anthony Barnet argues that the British constitution is sufficient in serving the purpose of every constitution. He states that "every constitution is established to protect the framework within which government and people can attack the problems of job shortages, livelihood and prosperity."2 In this sense, the British constitution is exactly the same as every other example in world politics. Perhaps the most easily defined constitution is America's 'Bill of Rights,' created in 1788. This written document clearly outlines the rights of American citizens, and is amended when changes to the constitution are made. As for Britain however, she remains one of the few countries in the world where the constitution takes an unwritten form. Perhaps this is the most obvious argument in favour of the
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
Conventions regulating ministerial conduct are an ineffective means of ensuring that government ministers will be held accountable for their actions. Discuss.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Public Law Semester 1 Assessment In this assignment I am going to discuss the agreements that are in place to regulate the work of government ministers. I am also going to look at whether the ministerial code that is in place is an effective way to ensure that the work that government ministers do is regulated and that they are maintaining the public’s trust in the work that they do. I will then look at two examples of ministerial conduct from 2010 to present day to see if government ministers follow the code to make my conclusion of whether the code is an ineffective way of ensuring government ministers will be accountable for their actions. Ministerial conduct and responsibilities refers to the idea that ministers have a set of standards to which they must adhere. They are expected to exemplify the highest standards of conduct, as they are both elected representatives and ministers of the Crown with a high level of responsibility for running the nation’s affairs. There are two types of ministerial responsibility, the first is collective ministerial responsibility and the second is individual responsibility. Collective responsibility is the cabinet have to present an united front and all agree on the same decisions, if members can not agree on the same decisions then members would have to resign. Individual responsibility is when
Constitutional conventions are vague notions which are difficult to define. No conventions are stated officially. Convention s can be broken with no adverse result. It is hard to understand why such a state of affairs is tolerated. Critically evaluate that statement, explaining to what degree, if at all, you agree with it.
“Constitutional conventions are vague notions which are difficult to define. No conventions are stated officially. Convention[1]s can be broken with no adverse result. It is hard to understand why such a state of affairs is tolerated.” Critically evaluate that statement, explaining to what degree, if at all, you agree with it. Pertaining to constitutional conventions, they are essentially unwritten rules which though not able to be contested in law, have such a strong moral force that they are rarely, if ever disputed. Convections deal mainly with the different branches of government: the Crown, the executive and Parliament, ministers and the civil service, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. However, as mentioned by Dicey: Conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power…are not really laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the 'conventions of the constitution', or constitutional morality…2 As such, this unofficial nature of the constitutional conventions is not exactly said to be binding on the parties or legally enforceable but nonetheless respected and mostly obeyed. There have been many debates over the years which seek to argue that conventions should be formalised so as to
Identify the constitutional powers of a Prime Minister of the UK, and examine how effectively he or she may be made responsible for the governments decisions and actions.
Public Law Module code - LC511 Course Work One Kamga Anyadike Word Count – 1983 Task - Identify the constitutional powers of a Prime Minister of the UK, and examine how effectively he or she may be made responsible for the government’s decisions and actions. To answer this question, it is necessary to consider what a prime minister of the UK consists of and what his powers and roles are within the British constitution and also how his or her decisions and actions affect the government. The role of the British office has frequently been a protruding topic of political debate, since the office began in the early 18th century. The office of the prime minister was developed by convention rather than law and the first official recognition of the post was obtained from the Treaty of Berlin 1878. The Prime Minister is the most significant person in British politics so all executive powers in the United Kingdom are carried out by Him/Her and the chosen cabinet. He is an MP and head of the government. The Prime Minister is responsible for appointing members of his cabinet and in charge of making the final decisions on major issues. To be appointed Prime Minister by the Queen, the individual must be the leader of the party that wins the most seats in a general election. The Prime Minister is appointed by these conventions: . “Be a member of and enjoy the support of
The rule of law, the separation of powers, and the existence of fundamental human rights serve as the foundational principles of the British Constitution. Without them our constitution could not work. Discuss. .
LLB Law – Public Law I (M3006) Public Law Essay Student name: Chong Chi Hung Andrew Candidate No: 107368 Seminar 19 Tutor’s name: Dr T Kochi Date: 27/11/2012 Words: 1488 . “A political constitution, more than a legal constitution, needs to be bolstered by principle. The ‘rule of law’, the ‘separation of powers’, and the existence of ‘fundamental human rights’ serve as the foundational principles of the British Constitution. Without them our constitution could not work.’ Discuss. The nature of the constitution of the United Kingdom has been bound by many constitutional conventions, the sets of laws and principles governed by the UK government. The un-codified elements are clearly expressed through the Parliament, the Parliament being the key player of the English legal system is liable passing different primary legislation in the UK, but after joining the European Union as a consecutive member, the domestic legislations are sometimes amended by the secondary legislations of the European institutions within different tools. Among all the relevant factors, due to the traditional powers of the parliamentary constitutional conventions and the royal prerogatives, the doctrine of the parliamentary sovereignty still play a dominate role as a final source of law. According to the current legal conditions mentioned in the title of the essay, the idea of
![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)