In five pages this paper provides support for the observation regarding British constitutions, 'If it were not for conventions our constitution would have been reduced to writing many years ago.' Ten sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEconven.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
There is a constitution in the UK, it is merely not one that is not written down. The conventions that form the basis of the constitution are not written down
as a constitution, if these convention, it is worth noting in this context conventions may be defined as "A term applied to a constitutional power which are observed although
they have not the force of law" (Ivamy, 2000; 62). If it were not for the convention then we may argue that the demand and needs of the country would
have been to develop a written constitution, but the conventions, which Dicey defines as practices or habits, and we can argue that this makes a written constitution unnecessary
(Thompson, 2000). If we look at the constitution then we can appreciate why this is the case. In order to examine this
we first need to first define what we mean by constitution. This has been defined by many critics and authors, one of the best definitions can be seen as
"A body of laws, customs and conventions that define the composition and powers of the organs of the state and regulate the relations of the various state organs to one
another an to the private citizen" (Hood et al, 1987; 5). If we assume this definition, we can also argue that there is a form of constitution in Great Britain,
only that it is not formalised and brought together in the traditional way, but is reliant on conventions. These conventions have allowed the constitution to be an evolving and growing,
allowing it to change with the needs of society. This is an advantage of having the constitution in this form, and if we look to the words of Lord