Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Is this an accurate explanation of the distinctive nature of law and convention in relation to the British constitution?
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Jun 19 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
'In British constitutional theory and practice there is a clear-cut distinction between law and convention. Law derives from common law and statute, and is enforceable by the courts. Convention derives from constitutional principle and practice and is not enforceable by the courts. Law remains in force until changed by statute. Convention may change with changing times. Law, at least if statutory, is ascertainable in precise form. Convention is often imprecise and may be nowhere formulated in categorical terms.' (Professor H.W.R. Wade) Is this an accurate explanation of the distinctive nature of law and convention in relation to the British constitution? Dicey1 probably gave the most accurate description of what conventions actually are when he stated that "conventions [are] understandings, habits, or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, of the Ministry, or of other officials, are not in reality laws at...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 149,430 others
