Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution of the United Kingdom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 60 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International law and the Constitution

In the first paragraph of the lead section, the "upholding of international law" is mentioned as a constitutional principle. The case of R v Lyons (UKHL 44 [2002]) is mentioned to support that. That is a misundertanding of the judgement, and can lead to a wrong conclusion on the part ofd the reader of the wiki article. While it is true that the opinions expressed by the Lords in the said judgement assert that british common law is to be interpreted in accordance with international law, it is equally true that international law is not part of UK law.

The UK has what is called a "transformation" system of reception of international norms (as opposed to States which have a direct reception system). This means that an international treaty can only become part of domestic law via an Act of Parliament (see wiki page on international legal dualism).

Furthermore, judges can only use international law to interpret UK law if and when "free to do so" (Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 283). This means that they cannot do so in direct contravention of the will of Parliament, as that would be a violation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This is precisely the reasoning that is followed in R v Lyons. For instance, Lord Hermann states that "In domestic law, the courts are obliged to give effect to the law as enacted by Parliament. This obligation is entirely unaffected by international law." (para. 40). Lord Millett said that European Court of Human Rights judgements "ha[ve] not been incorporated into our domestic law so as to be directly enforceable by individuals [...] while a judgment of the ECtHR is binding on the United Kingdom, it is not directly binding as a matter of our domestic law on the courts" (paras. 104-105).

I suggest the last sentence of the leading paragraph should reflect Lord Millett's position on the principles of the UK Constitution "the governing principles are the separation of powers, the supremacy of Parliament, and the independence of the judiciary". I also suggest the "internationalism" subsection should be amended to reflect the above. 139.47.42.191 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military power of Parliament??

The present text of the article states that "While Parliament had nearly uncontested military power before..." I don't even understand what this means. Parliament, as such, has not had any military power since the English Civil War, and even then it was hardly 'uncontested'. I assume that the word 'military' has crept in by mistake, but I can't think what it was meant to be.2A00:23C5:6492:8D01:E888:73F3:7B76:A0AD (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]