The United Kingdom (UK) constitution plays an important roin in regulating, distributing, and organizing the power wielded by the state. Studies indicate that like many other constitutions across the world, the constitution of the UK structures major institutions of the state including the state itself and sets up governing principles that determine how the institutions relate with citizens. Simeon mentions in his publication that the British constitution is unique in the sense that unlike constitutional documents from most nations, the UK constitution is unwritten with no apparent legal document containing fundamental laws on how the government should work1.
In addition, it is profound to note that the British constitution has undergone myriad of changes for many years. Some of the chaes that have been injected in the UK constitution are inclusion of treaties, landmark judicial decisions and rulings, conventions as well as statues which have collectively been used to make the constitution. It is against this backdrop that this paper examines the UK constitution, the influence of political system, separation of powers and changes that have been made on the current constitution.
A brief overview of the UK constitution
Packman points out that the UK constitution is mainly composed of laws which the parliament has enacted under the authority of the Queen2. As a matter of fact, the Queen forms the most important monarch and also an instrumental figure under the house of the lords. The parliament which enjoys sovereignty has been considered as a defining principal organ bearing in mind that it has the power and mandate to abolish or create various forms of legislation. It is imperative to note that the constitution has mandated the establishment and operation of the three main organs of the government namely the judiciary, legislature and executive.
The three branches exhibit separation of powers although they are all in one government. They are also supposed to uphold the rule law and maintain a unitary state under the influence of the Westminster Parliament. However, Simeon notes that some of the core principles of this constitution are mythical and may only be well comprehended when the legislature and the executive are fused.3
In his publication, Norton posits that the constitutional document in UK has been derived from different sources that include conventions, common law and statutes.4 The latter is made up of laws which the parliament has made and which are regarded as the highest in the land. On the other hand, conventional sources that form the constitution come from unwritten practices developed over a long period. Moreover, it Iis worth noting that courts in the UK as well as judges have also played integral role by handling different cases to establish what has come to be known as the common law. The latter all forms part and parcel of the constitution.
Hence, the judiciary has directly contributed towards building up of the UK constitution. It is also important to mention that the European Communities Actallowing them which the UK acceded to in 1972 has been widely embraced in the UK constitution not to mention the fact that the UK is part of the signatories to this Act. Nonetheless, the entrenchment of this Act has not been received warmly by some constitutional scholars. For instance, Packman laments that this Act has immensely impacted on the sovereignty of the UK parliament as well as the British constitution.5 On the same note, there are quite a number of international laws that are currently being used as part of the UK constitution. Furthermore, lawyers and politicians intending to understand the constitution have continued to largely rely on the interpretations of the local authorities.
Many analysts unanimously agree that a constitution that is uncodified presents major problems especially in terms of flexibility. Eijsbouts indicates in his publication that the uncodified nature of the UK constitution presents major challenges such as the inability of concerned individuals, parties, or bodies to sufficient understanding of what the constitution is and what it requires, and its inability to last without getting changed easily like written constitutions.6
The latter is indeed a problem as the nature of the UK constitution lacks written documents with great authority through which the government’s actions and other statute laws can be tested. As such, it is worth noting that changing or amending the constitution becomes very easy as there are no elaborate procedures. Twomey concurs with the above argument and indicates that since 1997, the UK constitution has demonstrated immense flexibility witnessed in the many constitutional reforms that have taken place including regional devolution of power, amending the Human Rights Act to have codified rights and reforming the House of Lords via abolition of hereditary peers. 7
Party systems in the UK
Lake defines a party in his publication as a political movement and adds that political parties in a democracy are essentially made up of associations most of which have common goals and sets of beliefs.8 These parties rise to power and apply the constitution in every possible means so that respective party leadership may assume office. In other words, political parties across the world usually act as the vehicle through which personalities rise to power.
However, it is worth noting that political parties should have a broader agenda in their manifestos and not merely ascending to power. While this may not be true of all political parties as some have desires that override the constitution and would employ any policy to gain support and take office, Lake further observes that political parties reflect ideologies to a certain degree which they pick from ideological cafeteria and which they use to gain support. In the UK for instance, major parties especially mass parties are associations which have been made up of several components which include a constituency association of extra-parliamentary army, a bureaucracy and elected MPs forming a parliamentary cadre.
Political parties and party system
In Britain, political parties were formed in the 1640s and 1650s. these were periods when English civil wars were common. At the initial stages, there were Parliamentarians and Royalists before the Whigs and Tories joined. Having different ideologies, the Whigs intended to have the Monarch power curtailed while the Tories, the present Conservative Party and probably world’s oldest party, presented itself as a patriotic party. Werner indicates that the political system in Britain is made up of there major political parties that include the Liberal Democratic Party also refereed to as Lib Dems.9 Under the present leadership of Nick Clegg, the party is said to be a libertarian party of the centrists. Another party is the Conservative Party, a center-right party under the leadership of David Cameron. The center left party which is the Labour party is the Third under the leadership of Ed Miliband.
However, there are also smaller political parties in the UK besides the three mentioned political parties. Lake points out that they include the green Party and the Independence Party in the UK as well as other regional parties.10 The latter parties operate in specific locations. For instance, the loyalists Democratic Unionist Party and nationalists Sinn Fein operate in Northern Ireland, Plaid Cymru in Wales while the Scottish National party operates in Scotland.11 It worth noting that the elections of leaders in these parties occur in diverse ways, but all of them have one common factor which is the involvement of party members as well as the members of parliament. In the House of Commons, the leader of the political party with the highest number of members is considered by convention the prime minister.
In the UK democracy, British parties are not in isolation, but are entwined inextricably giving them the opportunity to cross fertilize and share with organizational forms, strategies, policies and philosophy. The party system com only known are of four types and include the single party system found under the totalitarian regimes, single party dominant which dominated under coalitions or in its majority, two-party system and multi party. Kassim suggests in his publication that the party system in the UK is a two-party dominant one.12 However, Mayer holds a different opinion over Kassim’s idea of a two party system indicating that the notion is subject to qualification as a third party presence has always been felt.13 As a matter of fact, in 2001, over seventy one parties took part in the hotly contested elections.
How party system shapes power
Separation of power
Werner indicates that governing institutions in a country and the manner in which they relate with each other vary and depend on whether that country has a hybrid, parliamentary of presidential political system.14 While these political typologies differ in variance in diverse countries, they exhibit certain characteristics related to legislative and executive power, and their relationship towards a political conflict. The system of governance in the UK just as in British colonies in Africa, and much of Japan, Israel and continental Europe is parliamentarianism.15 He adds that the separation of power is determined by the extent at which the legislative branch can be controlled by the executive, or the latter are under the control of the legislature. One of the most important attributes of these systems has been exhibited when introducing bills in parliament.
As a matter of fact, there is need to be firm during such events since competition for supremacy seems to take center stage. In the UK parliamentary system, sovereignty is exercised by the parliament and the cabinet as well as the Prime Minister derives their executive authority from the legislature.
The chief executive, an office held by the prime minister is treated equally in terms of election and a member is elected in the same manner as other members in the legislature. As indicated earlier, the leader of a party with many votes via election or de facto to the legislature becomes the prime minister. De Jersey and Geoffrey point out that the latter has the power to appoint cabinet ministers and that the members of the parliamentary system typically remain unlike those of the presidential system, legislative members. He concludes by indicating that the UK has the strongest parliamentary system, what has come to be commonly called the Westminster system.16
Parliamentary sovereignty is a key component that enables members of a parliament to make laws or rescind them. From an institutional dimension, parliamentary sovereignty grants parliament the ability to make laws and offer their decisions through them. There is no Act that can go against the decision of parliament. However, parliamentary sovereignty faces several limitations which make it impossible for the British parliament to legislate on various legal provisions. Some of the possible limitations are the rule of law in the British constitution. It is a major controlling factor alongside the European Communities Act which was enacted in 1972.17
Indeed, the rule of law in Britain has a strong backing of the constitution and this implies that whatever the action the parliament deems fit to take must be strictly within the rule of law While it is unclear what rule of law envisages, it has substantive principles and rights, and validity on generality, prospectivity, certainty and clarity which may limit parliamentary powers. Therefore, the report intimates that to enact any piece of legislation, the parliament has to make use of the parliament Act or undergo a full legislative process.
On the threat posed by the European Communities Act (ECA), the observation noted by the report indicates that ECA is a major menace since its provisions under the constitution tend to repeal a ruling by the legislature. As such, the report indicates that the presence of the European Communities Act (EAC) renders parliamentary sovereignty void. the application of rules, doctrine of implied repeal and the binding of successors which are major roles showing the sovereignty of a parliament have been greatly undermined. Indeed, as noted in the previous examples of cases, the Act of Parliament which is a prerequisite in determining cases has many times been suspended and its place given to Human Rights Act. This has presented major concerns on what the role of parliament will be in the coming years if this trend persists.
Legislation, office removal and executive terms
Fair points out in his publication that there is a major difference between the parliamentary and presidential systems seen in the ability to dissolve the legislature or remove from office a chief executive.18 The term of service of both the executive and legislature is directly attached to each other. The removal of the Prime minister from office can occur through a vote of no confidence, a motion that is mostly filed by a coalition of opposition or a mere opposition party.
Fair continues to indicate that the removal of the prime minister and his cabinet signifies lack of confidence by the legislature. When this motion sails through, the prime minister and other members of the executive are forced to step down. Since the individuals forced to step down are members of the legislature, an election must therefore be carried out to create a fresh legislature. Besides, removal of the prime minister from the office can take place in certain conditions outside the legislature by party members a factor that does not call for legislative elections.19
This is in contrast with the presidential system in other nations whereby the members of parliament and the president are separately elected. Silberstein posits that in this separation of power, the members of parliament are safe from removal by the president.20 However, a legislature or a president can only be removed under peculiar conditions by a vote initiated by a lower legislative chamber. The president therefore can hold his position under normal circumstances until the end of his or her term.
In his publication Evolution of the constitution, Schofield indicates that party discipline is the practice of legislators using their parties to cast votes.21 In the UK, party discipline is a common practice enhanced by party cohesiveness. In a parliamentary system, party discipline is critical in the sense that it controls all manners of party deviations which may result into dissolution of a government. As such, the executive and the legislature are expected by the parliamentary system to maintain an amicable relation and come to consensus on issues as these factors are crucial for preventing dissolution of a government. To achieve this, rewards and punishments have been set to control and or exclude deviant members. It is imperative to note that the same measures are being applied by opposition parties who theoretically have their own strategies of maximizing in the parliamentary system their power through squelching internal disputes and bloc voting.
Functions of the legislature- Formulating and amending the legislation
The legislature in a parliamentary system provides and important forum where social, economic and political issues are discussed and new laws are formulated. In comparison, with a presidential system, Warbrick indicates in the latter, the legislature besides introducing and passing its own bills, formulates an agenda and introduces legislation.22 In a close relation with the executive, the legislature in a presidential system can formulate legislation.
However, Warbrick is quick to add that in the presidential system, the legislature’s power is limited to proposing and amending the budget. Inasmuch as the legislature in this system may be enjoying broad powers, they can not fully utilize it due to limited resources. Besides, the veto of the legislation can be done by the president a factor that will require about two thirds of votes to override.
On the other hand, the proposals and motions to be discussed by the legislature are regulated by the executive arm of the government which comprises of Prime Minister, and the rest of the bureaucracy. It is also important to note that parliamentary sovereignty can be affected by the constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty is a key component that enables members of a parliament to make laws or repeal them. From an institutional dimension, parliamentary sovereignty grants the UK parliament the ability to make laws, speak through them and no piece of legislation can go against its decision. However, parliamentary sovereignty faces several limitations which make it impossible for the British parliament to legislate. Some of the possible limitations are the rule of law in the UK constitution which is a major controlling factor and the European Communities Act which was made in 1972.
Factors that limit parliamentary sovereignty
In his publication the constitution and economic liberty Ely reports on limits affecting parliamentary sovereignty and indicates that the rule of law impacts on the establishing laws and parliamentary sovereignty in Britain.23 Indeed, as Ely suggests, the rule of law in Britain has a strong backing of the constitution and this implies that whatever action the parliament deems fit is controlled and limited to the demands by the rule of law. White concurs with Ely’s argument and posits that while it is unclear what the rule of law envisage, the mere fact that it has substantive principles and rights, and validity on generality, prospectively, certainty and clarity limits massively parliamentary powers.24 As such to enact a piece of legislation, the parliament has to make use of the act of parliament or a full legislative process.
Another limitation comes from the threat that the the European Communities Act (ECA) poses on parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. Jackson observes that the European Communities Act is a major menace as its provisions under the constitution tend to repeal a ruling by the legislature.25 It is imperative to point out that under section 2(2) of the Act, the ECA puts before the UK parliament regulations and requirements that they need to implement to change the law. Besides, in section 2(4) the European Communities Act provides that the Acts of Parliament, also called primary legislation and all legislation in the UK will be directly subjected to the European Communities law.
As such, Jackson continues to indicate that the presence of the European Communities Act (EAC) renders parliamentary sovereignty void, an evolution which impacts negatively on the British parliament. While arguing from the perspective of the Factortame case, a famous case in the UK, Worcester points out that the European Communities Act affects the UK statutes by inserting implied clauses.26 This, he pillories, is a major departure from parliamentary sovereignty as stipulated in the English constitutional doctrine.
Impacts from the Human rights Act and rule of law
Packman indicates that both the Human Rights Act and the European Law present major problems to the sovereignty of the UK parliament.27 The European law controls the Parliament and should the parliament fail to follow its dictates to the latter, this body reports it to the European Court of Human Rights. The observation from Packman is in agreement with Kirchick who posits that while it is indeed fair that rights of individuals should be considered when making a ruling on a matter, applying European Law to enforce a right clearly limits parliamentary sovereignty and establishes European Law above the English Law.28
Kirchick concludes by indicating that the rule of law is witnessed in the human rights Act ability to set regulations that rule over the parliament and the government. Besides making the Human rights Act formal and substantive, the rule of law causes it to appear superior to key organs of a nation.
The critical question that begs as Jackson puts in his publication is whether or not the parliament has any powers to unmake or make laws due to the incumbent limitation and if it can legislate on its own behalf.29 The concern demonstrated by Jackson clearly points out that the sovereignty of the parliament has been diminished by the presence of the European Community Law and the rule of law which have become supreme. Feng echoes this sentiments by indicating that the parliament has for many years been forced to conform to the aforementioned laws since 1972, a factor that has seen the sovereignty of the legislature undermined.30
The application of rules, doctrine of implied repeal and the binding of successors which are major roles showing the sovereignty of a parliament have been greatly undermined. Indeed, as noted earlier, the Act of Parliament which is a prerequisite in determining cases has many times be en suspended and its place given to Human Rights Act. This has presented major concerns on what the role of parliament will be in the coming years if this trend persists.
However, it is imperative to note that that a law cannot be above an Act and that the parliament despite the many setbacks still retains sovereignty. It indicates that the parliament can rise back to its former state of sovereignty by repealing the European community Act and amending the constitution to limit the rule of law. This can be attained despite the massive opposition that will come from different politicians.
Functions of main branches in power in the UK
The governing of the UK works in a constitutional monarchy framework with the head of the state as the Monarch and head of the government being the Prime Minister as observed by Dowdell.31 The executive power is duly exercised by Her Majesty the Queen. However, she has to consult with the devolved government as well as the House of the Lords. The UK parliament has two chambers, the House of Commons and the House of Lords which have the legislative power. Other bodies that have legislative powers include the Northern Ireland and Welsh assemblies as well as the Scottish parliament.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the current British Monarch and the chief of state of the United Kingdom. Goerner and Bogdanor point out that her role in the government though very little, her influence and presence in the government is greatly felt.32 The Monarch is sovereign and acts a source of executive power granted under the royal prerogative. This power can be used to carry out diverse and numerous functions some of which include declaration of war, sacking of the prime minister and withdrawal or issue of passports. The uncodified constitution of the UK grants the Monarch both domestic and foreign powers.
Some of the domestic powers include the ability to use Royal Charter to create corporations, power to grant honors, prerogative mercy, appoint queens council, command armed forces and commission them as well as appoint a prime minister. The Monarchs foreign powers include making and ratifying treaties, declaring peace and war, receiving and credit diplomats, and recognizing states among others.
The three arms of the government
As noted earlier, the Monarch can appoint the prime minister who along other ministers appointed by the latter forms a government supported by the House of Commons. In the Westminster System, the parliament creates the executive which becomes answerable to it. That appointed government can be forced by a vote of no confidence to seek parliamentary dissolution or resign and call for a general election. Practically, in the UK, the executive and all ministers are members of parliament. The upper house of this parliament is occupied by senior judges with their formal head being a minister. Besides appointing ministers, the role of the prime ministers can be considered equal with those of other political systems with presidents.
The government or the prime minister’s office has important political offices such as the treasury which carries out the functions of managing the economy, controlling government expenditure, and raising taxes. Besides, it also has the Home Office department charged with the responsibility of tackling matters related to immigration, policing and criminal matters. In addition, another department is the foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for international relationships especially among European Union members.
On the other hand, the legislature acts as the organ that makes laws to be employed in the UK. The acceptability and efficacy of these laws in the UK and their application are based on the fact that the parliament is sovereign. According to Aughey, the UK parliament could be considered as the most powerful in that it views the whole of the government as a unit and most importantly generates the needed cohesive outlook that can work for all of them.33 This has been cited to be crucial in dictating the ability of the nation to match ahead.
The efficacy of the UK governance system is further evident from application of the judicial branch which has been very critical in law interpretation and anchoring their harmonization by the different individuals and parties. To ensure a strong and effective system of management in the judicial system, the judicial branch in the UK has been made extremely complex through separate divisions into three legal systems. Bose posits that this is so in order to provide a smooth and coherent relation between individuals, political parties, and the administration.34 The separations include a legal system for Northern Ireland, another one for Scotland and one for England.
Therefore, the legal systems as Bose continue to indicate are extensions of the UK judiciary where cases are appealed to and determined to ensure smooth running of the nation. In their view, Goerner and Bogdanor indicate that governance should be viewed in the light of the cohesiveness of the established structures that determine applicability of different laws and policies.35 In this case, all the institutions are highly interdependent and application of economic, political, and social cultural consideration is accepted by the UK. An example includes the free movement of goods and people, application of human rights, and democratic ideals.
Reforms in uncodified UK constitution
According to Aughey, the reform process of the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom has been a slow process compared to the case with other democratic governments. In any case, most of the reforms that have been carried out in the past are very minimal.36 However the constitution has undergone extensive transformation especially under the leadership of Tony Blair to become what many analysts describe as desirable. The natures of changes which have taken place have been with no intended consequences. However, scholars point out that the reforms which have been initiated and implemented have been done without consideration of how much the constitutional framework is unraveling and without a proper mechanism to cushion the government against any consequences.
The UK constitution has over the years has evolved from a settled constitution of the 1950’s that received a mixture of reactions ranging from criticism to admiration to the present Westminster model. Simeon argues that major constitutional changes since Blair’s reign have been conducted with more focus and significance compared to earlier measures which were based on independent acts.37 Some of the changes that were debated upon in 2002 by the House of Lords under the Lord Chancellor included having the United Kingdom as a parliamentary democracy with the dominant chamber being the House of Commons and the Westminster parliament being supreme. Besides, there were calls to develop a democracy that was mature with diverse centers of power and increase the engagement of the public in democracy so that they can enjoy greater rights.
Bose points out that the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 in conjunction with the Human Rights Act of 1998 has for many years demonstrated their ability to destroy and even greatly undermine the British constitution.38 The Human Rights Act of 1998 has for instance caused numerous clashes between the judiciary and the executives as it grants the [courts great power to issue incompatible declarations and go against the major role of ministers.
Even though there is a greater need for judicial independence, the Human Rights Act has put immense pressure on the relationship between the courts and the legislature due to the powers it grants the former which in real sense is similar to the legislature. IN 2009, the prime minister ordered a review of the Human Rights Act, an act of reform and creation of a supreme court. This has been effective in limiting the powers of the courts which have limited parliamentary sovereignty and its habit of probing into the proceedings of the parliament.
Aughey points out that in the UK, the devolution of power to different parts in the nation was set in place for the sole purpose of strengthening the Kingdom.39 As a process, devolution arrangements at the initial stages were effective and saw different parties dominating Westminster. However, as years progressed, the issue of devolution increasingly became a problem as leaders continued to distance themselves. The major organs that have suffered from the problem of local and international devolution have been the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies as well as the Scottish parliament who even though have devolved powers, are powerless as the national parliament has eroded their power. There has been a need to reform the constitution in such a manner that the British political system is revitalized and more power is devolved. This will be beneficial in ensuring that community gr, as well as the local government, meant enjoy greater financial autonomy.
It is from the above discussion that the paper sums up by reiterating that the UK constitution plays a crucial role in the governance of the land, devolution of power, and interventions in matters related to political systems. However, the uncodified constitution has been made by various other laws which greatly impact the sovereignty of the parliament. This has called for radical reforms on the constitution to grant more power to the parliament and create room for further devolution.
Aughey, A, “Fifth nation: The United Kingdom between definite and indefinite articles.” British Politics, vol. 5, no. 3, 2010, pp. 265-285.
Bose, F, “Parliament vs. Supreme Court: a veto player framework of the Indian constitutional experiment in the area of economic and civil rights.” Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 21, no. 4, 2010, 336-359.
De Jersey, D and Geoffrey M, “The law, politics, and the constitution.” University of Queensland Law Journal, vol.21, no. 1, 2000, pp. 137-139.
Dowdell, C, “The American hermit and the British castaway: Voluntary Retreat and Deliberative Democracy in Early American Culture.” Early American Literature, vol. 46, no. 1 2011, 121-156,195.
“Downing Street memo controversy: provisional government finalizes draft constitution.” Foreign Policy Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 2, 2006, pp. 3-51.
Eijsbouts, WT, “The British republican constitution; Adam Tomkins, our republican constitution, (Oxford, Hart 2005) 156 p.” European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 2006, pp. 173-177. Web.
Ely, JW, “The constitution and economic liberty.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 35, no. 1, 2012, pp. 27-35.
Fair, JD, “The Monarchy and the constitution.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 111, no. 4, 1996, pp. 712-713.
Feng, L, “Administrative tribunals and adjudication”. Asia Pacific Law Review vol. 19, no. 2, 2011, pp. 253-258.
Goerner, E, and Bogdanor, V, “The New British constitution.” The Review of Politics, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, 155-159.
Higley, J, “The republican option in Canada, past and present / the Monarchy and the constitution / comparative constitutional engineering: an inquiry into structures, incentives, and outcomes.” Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.35, no. 3, 2000, pp. 523-527.
Jackson, TM, “Why the constitution matters.” Choice, vol. 48, no. 3, 2010, pp. 594-595.
Kassim, H, “The United Kingdom and the future of Europe: Winning the battle, losing the war.” Comparative European Politics, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, pp. 261-281.
Kirchick, J, “The center-right Honorable Tony Blair. Policy Review, no. 165, 2011, pp. 83-90.
Lake, SD, “Grounding cosmopolitanism: from Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution.” Choice, vol. 47, no. 11, 2010, pp. 2189-2190.
Mayer, FC, “Genèse et destinée de la constitution Européenne / Genesis and destiny of the European constitution.” Common Market Law Review, vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 1549-1551.
Norton, P, “Tony Blair and the constitution.” British Politics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007, pp. 269- 281.
Packman, JH, “The effect of the parliamentary voting system act on the British constitution*.” Texas Law Review, vol. 89, no. 5, 2011, pp. 1229-1246.
Schofield, N, “Evolution of the constitution.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no. 00071234, 2002, pp. 1-20.
Silberstein, DJ, “Bound by our constitution: women, workers, and the minimum wage.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol.49, no. 4, 1996, pp. 755-756.
Simeon, R, “Recent trends in federalism and intergovernmental relations in Canada: Lessons for the UK?” Round Table, no. 354, 2000, pp. 231-243.
Tew, Y, and Bogdanor V, “The New British Constitution.” The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 69, no. 2, 2010, pp. 413-415.
Twomey, A, “Keeping the queen in Queensland – how effective is the entrenchment of the queen and governor in the Queensland constitution?” University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, 2009, pp. 81-100.
Warbrick, C, “The governance of Britain.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 1, 2008, pp. 209-217.
Werner, WG, “The riddle of all constitutions – international law, democracy, and the critique of ideology, by Susan Marks, International Law, vol. 15, no. 4, 2002, pp. 936-940,
White, GE, “The political economy of the original constitution.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 35, no. 1, 2012, pp. 61-85.
Worcester, R, “Europe: the state of public opinion.” European Business Journal vol. 9, no. 4, 1997, pp. 8-17.
- R Simeon, “Recent trends in federalism and intergovernmental relations in Canada: Lessons for the UK?” Round Table, no. 354, 2000, p.233.
- JH Packman, “The effect of the parliamentary voting system act on the British constitution*.” Texas Law Review, vol. 89, no. 5, 2011, p. 1229.
- R Simeon, p.234.
- P Norton, “Tony Blair and the constitution.” British Politics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007, p. 269.
- JH Packman, p.1229.
- WT Eijsbouts, “The British republican constitution; Adam Tomkins, our republican constitution, (Oxford, Hart 2005) 156 p.” European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 2006, p. 173. Web.
- A Twomey, “Keeping the queen in Queensland – how effective is the entrenchment of the queen and governor in the Queensland constitution?” University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, 2009, p. 81.
- SD Lake, “Grounding cosmopolitanism: from Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution.” Choice, vol. 47, no. 11, 2010, p. 2189.
- WG Werner, “The riddle of all constitutions – international law, democracy, and the critique of ideology, by Susan Marks, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, ISBN 0-19-826798-3 (Hardback), 164 Pp., UK£ 35.” Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 15, no. 4, 2002, p. 936.
- Lake, p. 2190.
- “Downing Street memo controversy; provisional government finalizes draft constitution.” Foreign Policy Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 2, 2006, p. 3-51.
- H Kassim, “The United Kingdom and the future of Europe: Winning the battle, losing the war.” Comparative European Politics, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, p. 261.
- FC Mayer, “Genèse et destinée de la constitution Européenne / Genesis and destiny of the European constitution.” Common Market Law Review, vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 1549.
- Werner, p. 937.
- J Higley, “The republican option in Canada, past and present / the Monarchy and the constitution / comparative constitutional engineering: an inquiry into structures, incentives, and outcomes.” Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.35, no. 3, 2000, p. 523.
- D De Jersey and M Geoffrey, “The law, politics, and the constitution.” University of Queensland Law Journal, vol.21, no. 1, 2000, p. 137.
- Higley, p.524.
- JD Fair, “The Monarchy and the constitution.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 111, no. 4, 1996, p. 712.
- De Jersey and M Geoffrey, p.138.
- DJ Silberstein, “Bound by our constitution: women, workers, and the minimum wage.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol.49, no. 4, 1996, p. 755.
- N Schofield, “Evolution of the constitution.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no. 00071234, 2002, p. 2.
- C Warbrick, “The governance of Britain.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 1, 2008, p. 209.
- JW Ely, “The constitution and economic liberty.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 35, no. 1, 2012, p. 27-35.
- GE White, “The political economy of the original constitution.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 35, no. 1, 2012, p. 61.
- TM Jackson, “Why the constitution matters.” Choice, vol. 48, no. 3, 2010, p. 594,
- R Worcester, “Europe: the state of public opinion.” European Business Journal vol. 9, no. 4, 1997, p. 12.
- J Packman, “The effect of the parliamentary voting system act on the British constitution*.” Texas Law Review, vol. 89, no. 5, 2011, p. 1229.
- J Kirchick, “The center-right Honorable Tony Blair. Policy Review, no. 165, 2011, p. 83.
- Jackson, p. 594.
- L Feng, “Administrative tribunals and adjudication”. Asia Pacific Law Review vol. 19, no. 2, 2011, p. 253.
- C Dowdell, “The American hermit and the British castaway: Voluntary Retreat and Deliberative Democracy in Early American Culture.” Early American Literature, vol. 46, no. 1, 2011, 156,195.
- E Goerner, and V Bogdanor, “The New British constitution.” The Review of Politics, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, 155.
- A Aughey, “Fifth nation: The United Kingdom between definite and indefinite articles.” British Politics, vol. 5, no. 3, 2010, p. 265.
- F Bose, “Parliament vs. Supreme Court: a veto player framework of the Indian constitutional experiment in the area of economic and civil rights.” Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 21, no. 4, 2010, p. 336.
- Goerner and Bogdanor, p. 156.
- Aughey, p. 265
- Simeon, p. 243.
- Bose, p. 337.
- Aughey, p. 266.