Sovereign states around the world are governed by a constitution, which is the basis of the laws of the land. Most countries such as the United States, Canada, and France have a written constitution, while the United Kingdom, Israel, and New Zealand have an unwritten constitution. A written constitution is characterized by a complete codification of all laws and constitutional principles. On the other hand, the unwritten Constitution tends to have most principles uncodified, which is highly characteristic of the UK Constitution. '[1]Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The reason why the English constitution takes on this unusual unwritten nature is simple. It is because of the historical development of England. Written constitutions do not arise by chance. A country acquires a written constitution deliberately and as a direct consequence of a political event...' In most cases, the unwritten nature of the British constitution has been described as advantageous. The British Constitution has more political values ​​than legal values. The citizens and the Parliament of the United Kingdom respect the rule of law and constitutionalism and he explains it clearly with two words of [2]Geoffrey Marshall, he argues that ''the most obvious and undisputed convention of the British constitutional system is that the Parliament it does not use its unlimited sovereign legislative power in an oppressive or tyrannical manner. It is a vague but clearly accepted constitutional provision, based on the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law. As an unwritten constitution, the UK constitution is highly flexible and can easily evolve and adapt to changing times. Modern times require a change in the law to accommodate news trends, perceptions and beliefs. Whatever it takes for Parliament to recognize the need for change and then continue to make amendments. As a result, it is observed that the traditional laws of the UK Constitution do not inhibit progress but are instead subject to change to align with changing situations. For example, greater separation of powers following the [3]Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and reduced manipulation of general election results following the [4]Time-limited Parliaments Act 2011. Perhaps the most significant modernization changes have occurred in this area of ​​human rights, with the [5]Human Rights Act of 1998 and the [6]Freedom of Information Act of 2000. This feature constitutes an entrenchment and considering that they have been put democratic procedures are in place and that both the judiciary and parliament are there to safeguard the Constitution, then it is best suited to reflect a constantly changing world. Promoting transparency, accountability, democracy and tenure are distinct benefits of the UK constitution. All matters concerning the constitution are dealt with by parliament, which is made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The government is subject to dissolution and therefore accountable to Parliament. [7] Constitutional behavior is challenged by this unwritten constitution through conventions, which have led to acts of parliament requiring the government to resign if it loses after a “no confidence” vote in parliament. The power of most written constitutions is given to judges who are not elected, making them highly superior and susceptible to being influenced by subjective factors. Therefore, parliament acts as a quality control tool and with constant government regulation and monitoring iscapable of guaranteeing democratic legitimacy. Despite the advantages of the unwritten constitution, there are limits to its supremacy. The unwritten feature of the constitution may favor the likelihood of its politicization. The fact that parliamentary supremacy is considered the final law and that judicial courts act only to regulate parliament establishes political reality. This reality underlies the defenseless nature of judicial courts due to the lack of a codified constitution. Furthermore, there are risks related to the flexible nature of the unwritten Constitution. All laws are exposed to bizarre changes by parliament or government since there is no specific legal status. Furthermore, it facilitates the erosion of individual human rights due to the lack of a strictly enforceable legal system. It is also argued that the unwritten constitution lacks clarity. This is contrary to a written constitution, which is detailed and explicitly addresses the limitations of parliament and government. This makes it easily accessible to ordinary citizens and at the same time promotes transparency in judicial decisions. And we come to the point where we need to discuss whether a codified constitution is the best option for constitutional reform in the UK. The purpose of a written constitution is that it would allow everyone to know what were the rules and institutions that governed and directed ministers, officials and parliamentarians in carrying out their public functions. [8] The sprawling mass of common law, Acts of Parliament and European treaty obligations, surrounded by a series of important but sometimes uncertain unwritten conventions, is impenetrable to most people and must be replaced by a single document of fundamental law dictating the functioning and operation of government in the United Kingdom easily accessible to all. Furthermore, it has become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience, and well-established procedures to secure popular and parliamentary consensus are needed that require a written constitution. The current “unwritten constitution” is an anachronism full of references to our ancient past, unsuitable for the social and political democracy of the 21st century and the future aspirations of its people. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process. A written constitution would circumscribe the boundaries of the British state and its relations with Europe and the world. It would today become a symbol and expression of national identity and a source of national pride. The argument against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, it is undesirable and it is not British. The fact that the UK's system of government has never been reduced to a single document is an indication of the success of Westminster's system of parliamentary democracy and the stability it has brought to the country. This is in contrast to most other countries whose written constitutions were the product of a revolution or independence. The unwritten nature of the constitution is uniquely British, it reminds us of a great history and is a source of national pride. Contrary to claims that it is obsolete, it is evolutionary and flexible in nature and more easily allows practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms to be implemented than would be the case with an entrenched constitutional document. While some are concerned about the supposed existence of an “elective dictatorship” and the inadequacy of checks and balances in the political system, in reality there is a wide range of considerable pressures placed on ministers who, 2000