Although there have been debates around the world regarding the nature of the British constitution and its success and failure in the modern world, we can all see and understand that the United Kingdom has a unique system of governance called an uncodified constitution. Referring to JAG Griffith's definition, which I also consider the most appropriate states, "the constitution is neither more nor less than what happens." Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened, that would also be constitutional. »1 There are other definitions from Kings to Ridley, but they all turn out to be either a little vague or too specific. There are essentially three pillars in the United Kingdom which constitute a constitution and provide a basic structure to a country. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The first pillar that binds and controls the grant of governmental power is convention, namely the non-legal rules practiced by the government. Many countries have conventions, but in the UK this plays an important role as the UK has an S-shaped constitution. They are not enforceable in court but are rarely breached. Conventions can be defined in broader terms as non-legal rules of conduct guiding the actions and relationships between politicians and civil servants under the British constitution. This makes them rules of the utmost importance that cannot be brought to court. But in recent times it has been observed, although indirectly, that the courts take into account the conventions in cases of national proceedings. For example, Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752 (CA) is an outstanding example where a convention was taken into consideration when dealing with a case, TRA Allen clearly mentioned that reliance on a convention in a case was only made because it justified its nature2. There have been long debates about the differentiation between law and conventions and there is not much to infer except that laws (statutes) and conventions are very similar and that the criticism of Jennings cited the reform of the council tax4. One of the fundamental questions that arises when reading about the importance of conventions in the British constitution is why they are not codified even as they shape the basic structure of government structure. We must understand that codifying various conventions is not the same as making them enforceable in court. Codification only results in the publication of the conventions, which has already been done on a few occasions. The 1992 ee ministerial code, published by the cabinet, sets out the conduct of ministers. The adjoining civil service code is also a notable example. Gmarshal and gc moodie have provided a balancing argument regarding the codification of conventions 22. There have been several occasions when conventions have been taken into consideration to convert them into common laws, but the courts have always rejected the same, but certain conventions have been transformed into common laws. into bills such as finance bills and fixed parliamentary acts. In a word, we can express that the conventions have been shaped over the years and that codifying them all would not be positive because in their current state they can be easily modified depending on the circumstances, but once codified and transposed into the legislation. they must be changed according to the appropriate procedure, which can take months or years. people wonder about.