The argument for codifying constitutional conventions is not only a fascinating way to examine
the legal system of the United Kingdom, but it is also an absorbing subject that gives rise to the
dominant ideas of the British Constitution.
To begin with, Constitutional conventions are guiding principles without any specific legal
enforcement powers (not legally enforceable), yet they are crucial for the control of
constitutional issues. They still have the right to control the behaviour of ministers, bureaucrats,
or sovereign authorities. These conventions serve as the guidelines for governing political
systems and defending citizen rights. To be specific, a constitution is a set of laws on how a
country is governed. People adhere to the basis of conventions in a similar way that they follow
laws. In this matter, the UK constitution is uncodified. There are both legal and non-legal sources
of the UK constitution. Constitutions that are not codified have a variety of sources, are
adaptable, and may change over time. While codified constitutions offer greater benefits
including explicit regulations, increased rights protection, and restricted government.
Unquestionably, conventions, EU Law, Statute Law, Common Law, and Royal Prerogative are
some of the components that make up the UK constitution. Examples of Conventions include
‘Sewel Convention’ of 1999. This convention, also referred to as the Sewel Convention, has
evolved into both a fundamental tenet of devolution and a standard method of conducting
government. The rule of law is a different consideration that is a very pertinent feature to the UK
constitution.
A great example in the case of Attorney General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd. (1975), the courts'
treatment of constitutional conventions is demonstrated very thoroughly as can be seen along
with the courts interpreting the constitution. For the case of Attorney General V Jonathan Cape,
it is understood whether the release of private conversations between Cabinet Ministers that are
confidential would be a violation of the constitutional principle of collective responsibility,
specifically in which ways. Moreover, the court had its powers to determine the decisions
overall. The primary concern that emerged was if the revelation of private communications
between the Cabinet Ministers that were confidential would violate the constitutional principle of
collective accountability, given that ten years had passed since the events that were documented
that made it no longer confidential. Constitutional conventions in this instance are notable for the
fact that they lack legal force that is mentioned in this case. Although it was clearly
acknowledged, the non-legal rule meant that the convention of collective ministerial
responsibility was not put into effect. Therefore, in the most effective way, the fundamental
components of the UK constitution are presented profoundly throughout this case. As a result, it
should be highlighted that although conventions may regulate behaviour and rules, because they
are not upheld by the courts, they are not actually regarded as laws. Furthermore, constitutions
bring advantages such as making it easy to adapt to certain circumstances in a fast moving
society. Which creates more of a decisive parliament, while also protecting human rights.
Codifying has proven to be beneficial for many years, and there is no danger to human rights
within its clear structure. Codification would undoubtedly offer more security, as well as a
constrained government, greater equality, and neutrality. However, the disadvantages may also
exist within codification with courts being involved and the overall structure of conventions.
Codification might raise the possibility of an issue about a revolution or war in some
perspectives. In the majority of instances, it can occasionally act as an unwanted barrier in
response to others' judgments. In addition, the cons of a codified constitution include the
possibility of being quickly out of date and the possibility that judges' interpretations may
contain any type of imbalances. For these reasons, I believe that the advantages of codification
truly outweigh the disadvantages.
Therefore, the British constitution's lack of codification and its constitutional norms are
consequently viewed as key factors in the development of the UK as it is today.
