Skip to content
How Countries Constitute ThemselvesLesson 9 of 19

9 · Codified and uncodified constitutions

This course is open while its review is still in progress. Every course here gets a source-by-source citation review before it is marked reviewed; this one has not finished that process yet. How review works

Most constitutions are one document you can hold: a single written text called "The Constitution of ...", adopted on a date, amended by numbered changes. A few of the world's oldest democracies have no such document at all, and reading them is a different skill. This is the form axis, first sub-question: codified or uncodified.

Codified: the single-document model

A codified constitution gathers the fundamental rules into one written instrument that is higher law and follows a special amendment process. The United States, Germany, Japan, South Africa, France, and the great majority of countries are codified. When you want to know the rule, you go to the document, find the article, and read it, which is exactly the move course 1 taught for finding the source of a power.

Uncodified: no single text, in three real countries

An uncodified constitution has no single governing document. The constitutional rules are real and binding, but they are scattered across ordinary statutes, court decisions, and unwritten conventions, and no one text sits above the rest as "the constitution." Three democracies are the standard examples:

CountryWhere the constitution lives
United KingdomLandmark statutes, common-law court decisions, and political conventions, with no single document and Parliament legally supreme
New ZealandThe Constitution Act 1986 plus other statutes, conventions, and the Cabinet Manual, none of it entrenched above ordinary law
IsraelA set of "Basic Laws" enacted over decades, meant to add up to a constitution that was never adopted as one document

Each is uncodified for its own historical reason. The United Kingdom never had a single founding rupture that produced one text; its constitution grew by accretion over centuries. New Zealand has a Constitution Act (1986), but that Act is not entrenched higher law; it can be changed like an ordinary statute, so New Zealand has a written core without a rigid capital-C constitution. Israel's first Knesset could not agree on a full constitution in 1948 to 1950 and adopted the Harari Resolution (1950), deciding to build the constitution piece by piece through Basic Laws over time (Knesset, Basic Laws).

Teach the word: "unwritten" is the wrong term, "uncodified" is right

Here is a small but real correction the course insists on. People often call the UK constitution "unwritten." That is misleading. Enormous parts of it are written down, in statutes like the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union, and the devolution Acts you met in the middle-layer course. What it lacks is not writing; it is CODIFICATION, the gathering of the rules into one supreme document. So the accurate contrast is codified versus uncodified, not written versus unwritten. Getting the word right is getting the concept right: the issue is whether there is one entrenched text, not whether anything is on paper.

Why the difference is not just filing

An uncodified constitution changes the answer to course 1's fourth question, "who can overturn it?" In a codified, entrenched system, an ordinary statute that violates the constitution can be struck down. Where the constitution is uncodified and Parliament is legally supreme, as in the United Kingdom, there may be no higher text to strike a statute against, so the ultimate check is political and conventional rather than judicial. The form of the constitution decides what kind of protection its limits actually have, which is why this axis leads straight into the next lesson on rigidity. This is comparative description, not legal advice.

Sources

Also saves the next lesson, so you can keep going offline.

Sign in to track your progress