Conventions in the united kingdom constituion

Introduction

Conventions are distinctive to the UK Constitution as they include the practices, traditions and behaviour of how the government and state companies operate. They are believed non-legal rules that are unenforceable. However, there exists uncertainty adjoining their definition and position with regards to laws and regulations and whether their obligatory dynamics makes them more than mere habits. Although the united kingdom is an operating democracy, it is one with out a written Constitution. Therefore, my purpose throughout this article is firstly to go over the role of conventions, and how they used to modify government bodies, for which I will give a comprehensive account concerning their existence and how they are simply exercised. Secondly, it might be essential to explore the unfavorable effect there usage may have on democracy, since there is absolutely no formalised treatment which packages out the government's purpose on how it should operate, one could argue that its practice could be probably harmful to contemporary society. Thirdly, it might be essential to establish whether conventions should be codified into a written solitary file which would provide persistence and certainty into the way the federal makes its decisions. To be able to develop a knowledge of the role of conventions it might be sensible to first of all explore their precise definition. Dicey clarifies "they contain customs, methods, maxims, or precepts which are not enforced or recognized by courts"[1]. However, it could be argued that classification is misleading as Barber mentions "courts can recognise anything they would like to recognise[2]". Additionally, as conventions are regarded non-legal rules, does not necessarily mean they are not recognised by the courts which, presents some inconsistency into Dicey's theory. The situation about the patriation of the Canadian constitution in the early 1980's illustrates the fact that courts will sometimes apply conventions even though they are not legally required to do so. It was established in Guide re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada [1982] 105 DLR [3d] 1[3] that under Canadian law any amendments to the Constitution of Canada, an Action was required from the UK Parliament[4]. However, it was by convention that the Canadian Supreme Court should give previous notice to the provinces of any amendments to be able to acquire their consent. However, as this convention was recognised it was eventually disregarded and it was said that the Canada Work 1982[5] was invalid as the Canadian provinces didn't give prior consent. Although, there was no rule of law which required provincial consent to constitutional amendments, the question here was does a convention actually exist? In Jennings three level theory he advised that "first, what exactly are the precedents; second, did the celebrities in the precedents believe that they were destined by a rule; and thirdly, will there be a reason for the rule?[6]" In order to analyse this into greater detail it might be essential to put this theory into practice by illustrating the reasons for the court's decision. It was discovered that five precedents where constitutional amendments possessed modified provincial legislative power had directly damaged federal-provincial human relationships[7]. The majority mentioned that "the deposition of the precedents, positive and negative, concurrent and without exclusion will not of itself suffice in establishing the lifestyle of the convention"[8], which could suggest that although conventions carry no legal weight the relevant actors were not appreciated to be bound by them. In which case Jaconelli argues "by concentrating on the beliefs kept by the relevant actors, seems to suggest an extremely flimsily basis for the existence of constitutional conventions"[9]. Additionally, as the Canadian federal was compelled to delay strategies in order to get consent from the provinces, the arrangement from the majority allowed the formation of Canada's 1983 constitution to occur. However, as Jennings three stage lab tests was applied in this case, the fact that the actors didn't consider them binding, will not necessarily excuse the importance of conventions which in this situation backed the courts in their judicial interpretation of an convention from a mere habit.

Summary

Another case where in fact the courts were unwilling to use conventions is at Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752[10]. It was held that the publication of the Crossman diaries which included Cabinet proceedings was not in the general public interest. The Attorney-General sought to prevent publication on the grounds of a breach of convention. Lord Widgery C. J in his judgement explained that "there is no obligation enforceable at laws to avoid the publication of cupboard documents and proceedings, except in acute cases where national security is involved[11]". However, the Attorney-General argued that within the convention of collective responsibility the affairs of the Case were confidential and really should not be disclosed unlike public interest. However, the defence for the publishers argued that "collective responsibility is a doctrine which includes grown up and has never been dignified as a convention"[12], that could suggest that as conventions are believed old established techniques that are not formalised into a set of rules, there is still uncertainty into their use. However, while a convention is deemed non-legal does not necessarily mean they don't have any legal result, which would correspond with Jenkins declaration that "a convention can have legal impact despite not being truly a legal rule[13]", which signifies that the political implications of conventions are therefore of undeniable significance. The main purpose of conventions is to prevent the constitution from becoming old-fashioned by providing consistency and overall flexibility, that can be modified to match a continuously evolving constitution. Regarding to Jennings, conventions "provide the flesh which clothes the dried up bones of regulations"[14]. Although this can be an over enthusiastic explanation, it illustrates the huge recognition and gratitude of the purposes served by conventions. Lord Winton's modern view of your convention is usually to be "the main political guidelines which regulate relations between different parts of our constitution and the exercise of electric power but which do not have legal drive"[15]. However, there are conventions which keep a greater significance than statutory and common-law guidelines. Among the strongest conventions is usually that the Monarch offers "Royal Assent to Bills duly approved" on the advice of her ministers. Since 1708 the refusal to assent to the Scottish Militia Costs 1708[16] by Queen Anne was the last time this veto was used. However, for the Monarch to refuse her assent to a Invoice which she disapproved, no court would consider the Bill to be an genuine Function of Parliament[17], which would possibly be harmful to society, as this might have averted an important little bit of legislation from being enacted. However, as (Munro 1999) mentions "there were no instances today of legislation being offered for assent up against the wishes of the federal government"[18], however there's been on occasion that an assent to charges has either been withheld or delayed. For instance on the advice of Unionist the Ruler was undecided as to whether to grant Royal Assent to the house Rule Act 1914[19] which allows for the devolution of Ireland to be 3rd party. Although, this Invoice was rejected in the House of Lords, the Parliament Action 1911[20] was used to override their decision and it was on the advice of the Best Minister that the King gave Royal Assent. However, because of the First World Conflict, this Take action never came into being and it had not been until the Federal of Ireland Take action 1920[21] that empowered the patriation of Ireland, which proven an Irish Free State. Additionally, the expansion of the convention needing royal assent helps show that conventions can on occasion hold legal as well as politics weight. There has been on occasion where the courts have been unable to accept conventions as a way of redress. The issue arising in Manuel v Lawyer Standard [1983] Ch. 77[22] engaged the possible crystallisation of any convention into rules. It was advised that the convention of the united kingdom Parliament shouldn't legislate for Canada except with its permission, may have evolved into a law through long term acknowledgement. Slade LJ explained that "this case raises issues that are without doubt of great political importance to all peoples of Canada"[23]. However, it was concluded that conventions do not own the energy to progress from political routines to actual regulations. This does not indicate that conventions serve no legal purpose and indeed there are a few rare occasions where in fact the legal vitality of conventions is really as great as the legal power of laws. However, the breach of a typical rule can result in a big change in legislations which shows that conventions do exert a certain amount of electric power in legal areas as well as in regions of a purely politics dynamics. The convention that the House of Lords should not obstruct the coverage associated with an elected government whenever a majority in the House of Commons exists was considered to have been breached in 1909[24], with a refusal from the home of Lords to accept budget proposals formulated by the Liberal administration. THE HOME of Lords was consequently denied the power to avoid enactment of the strategy accepted as a 'money invoice', that was a result of the Parliament Work 1911[25]. However, got this Action not been exceeded would have triggered a number of a political problems that could in truth produce an unpredictable government which the general public relies on, which fits nicely with Lord Wilson's debate that "for the breach of a convention is liable to bring political trouble in a single form or another[26]. Which means reality Parliament was able to step in and stop any further shows of an breach reoccurring not only exemplifies their lifetime but the behavior where conventions are exercised demonstrates the need to allow them to be implemented and obeyed. Though it is uncommon for courts to use conventions, they often times use conventions as an instrument for interpretation. As Jenkins mentions "courts were flawlessly with the capacity of recognising and making use of conventions to provide aid for and history to constitutional or statutory construction"[27]. In a very privy council charm case about the accession of Canada to freedom, the convention of collateral status referenced in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster Act 1931[28], that was the primary grounds for interpreting an otherwise ambiguous section of the Canadian constitution in such a way as to empower Federal government Parliament to reject attracts the privy council from all Canadian courts in civil conditions. Likewise when courts have objected to review the grounds on which executive discretionary power have been exercised, they have relied after the convention a minister is in charge to Parliament for the exercise of electricity. Although it is not essential for courts to enforce conventions, it is clear that these non-legal guidelines impose a significant weight of responsibility. Furthermore, as Dr H. V. Evatt argues "the practice of enacting conventions gives authoritative decisions about their meaning and application[29]", which would suggest that individuals would be more inclined to obey legal rules rather than non-legal rules. Furthermore, what distinguishes these non legal guidelines from mere practices is Lord Wilson's assertion that conventions that are shattered, legal problems would eventually arise. Sometimes conventions have been formalised into a written record to provide reliability and certainty. Specific responsibility stipulates that a minister is responsible to Parliament for his or her own functions and the acts of civil servants in their division, which suggests that ministers are accountable for the misconduct of their subordinates even though he/she acquired no understanding of the activity. This would support (Marshall and Moodie 1967) debate that "ministers are dependable morally for culpable actions just as as everyone else"[30]. However, as there is absolutely no definitive meaning between the conditions 'accountability' and 'responsibility'. This poses some inconsistency in to the use of conventions. Therefore, it has been accepted that the guidelines of ministerial responsibility should be designed in to the Ministerial Code 2007[31] in order to provide detail and persistence in it us.

Conclusion

While there could be some uncertainty regarding the description of conventions, collective ministerial responsibility requires that ministers are united in encouraging any coverage proposals or legislative steps in the House of Commons. (Marshall and Moodie 1967) identifies this as "certain rules of constitutional behaviour which are believed binding and upon those who operate the constitution"[32]. However, where the government struggles to gain the support of Parliament a formal vote of no self confidence is essential to require the resignation of a UK Parliament. Although Marshall and Moodie's statement is wholly appropriate, it illustrates the value and binding effect of conventions that happen to be highly regarded by the politics physiques. However, a convention which is present is that ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament in serious cases they are required to offer their resignation. Within a magazine article Clare Short ex-International Department Secretary claimed that Tony Blair possessed misled Parliament adjoining the legality of the 2003 invasion on Iraq[33]. Matching to (Tomkins 2003) "lying down to Parliament is not really a legal wrong, but this can be a constitutional wrong"[34]. Although her resignation was required, there is absolutely no statutory guideline which exists to modify the behaviour of a Prime Minister when a general election is well known. However, this can be a convention that the Perfect Minister should resign when he has lost the election, which immediately reveals some inconsistency into the way the government makes its decision. Although any office of the Prime Minister is established by convention it could be argued that the range of conventions is uncertain as it's the Queen who is able to appoint or dismiss ministers at her own pleasure. On conclusion while the explanation of conventions has been unclear, conventions have been able to operate alongside statute regulation and legislation to provide a stable administration, which shows their consistency and flexibility. In addition, as there is an responsibility to be destined by them there exists proof to suggest their lifetime, which as illustrated has damaged judicial reasoning, by enacting laws as well as providing written guidelines. However, a convention that was applied a long time ago may not be applicable today and the thought of unwritten guidelines would provide instability in the one body that folks depend on. Additionally the idea of democracy is one where the consumer have a say in deciding who goes into federal government but also how they must be governed. Therefore a convention that is unable to evolve wouldn't normally provide a clear understanding as to the government motives. While it may be beneficial to have conventions codified to provide clearness and consistency, it would have to be clear which conventions should be written concerning avoid issue with statutory and common-law rules. However, despite the many criticisms of the utilization of conventions in the united kingdom Constitution a constitution without conventions would eventually fail as they are sufficiently flexible rather than lawful restrictions which are difficult to alter. Therefore, it might be important to codify a convention which has been readily used, somewhat than codifying them all into a unitary document.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)