“What distinguishes conventions from laws is that conventions are rules applied by politics, while constitutional laws are rules applied by the courts.” “The question, of course, is what happens when someone violates a convention. When politicians break a law, they can be tried, tried and punished if convicted. But precisely because the Court is a “court” and not a “court of conventions”, its judges cannot and will not apply constitutional conventions. So who applies them? The answer is the voters. In a constitutional system based on conventions, it is assumed that voters know what those conventions are and that they will guard them jealously. Therefore, those in political office will abide by these conventions for fear of drawing the wrath of voters. However, this does not mean that constitutional conventions are always respected. The great advantage of constitutional rules in the form of conventions rather than laws is that they can be applied with some flexibility. Ideally, there should be a comprehensive and unambiguous legal declaration of the rights of persons with disabilities and detailed legislation to implement these guarantees in practice.
It is essential that the recognition and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities be enshrined in the supreme law of the country, i.e. in the national constitution or in the basic laws. This ensures the highest possible legal protection and recognition. This could include the introduction of disability as one of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited; or the explicit protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in the national Constitution, whether as part of a general guarantee of equality or in the form of specific provisions on the rights of persons with disabilities. Examples of a convention are the assumption that a government will resign if it loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, or the “Salisbury Convention” to the Lords, which is that the Lords do not oppose the second or third reading of a government law promised in their election manifesto, or those in the 2011 Cabinet Manual that refer to it, what would happen in the event of a suspended parliament. Malcolmson and Myers (reference below) describe conventions and laws as the two basic rules that make up the constitution of a regime: conventions are political rules; Laws are legal rules. (See Constitutional Conventions and Constitutional Laws.) A convention is a long-established, informal and uncodified procedural agreement that is followed by state institutions. Conventions are particularly important in countries like the United Kingdom, where there is no written constitution where they help to understand how the state works. They do not exist in any written document that has legal authority, but there will rarely be a deviation from an agreement without a valid reason. The task of identifying differences between laws and constitutional conventions has caused great difficulties for British constitutional theorists. Two possible distinctions are examined.
First, that laws are enforced by the courts, with legal sanctions after they are violated, while conventions are applied only through political pressure. Second, that laws are systematic, a set of rules bound by other rules, while each constitutional convention is autonomous. A refinement of this second distinction focuses on the special claims that the law makes. Although conventions can sometimes form systems, this system will not make the claims that are characteristic of legal systems. This document argues that neither of the two distinctions can be maintained. The difference between law and conventions is of one degree: laws and conventions should be placed on a range of types of social rules, a spectrum that is classified in terms of formalizing rules. Laws are at the most formalized end of this spectrum, but there is no single, definable point where rules evolve from conventions to laws. In addition to this argument, it will be argued that conventions can become laws through judicial intervention, and that conventions can “crystallize” into laws over time by formalizing them more and more. Emphasize that “the difference between conventions and laws is not that the former are not written and the latter are written: the difference lies in the way the rule is applied.” The recent dispute over tax credits has put to the test a convention that the House of Lords will not oppose a “money act” proposed by the government and passed in the House of Commons. When the Lords voted to postpone this legislation, they did so on the grounds that the tax credits were related to social assistance and not just funding.
“This rule takes the form of an unwritten agreement that is accepted by all as binding and sanctioned by the power of tradition. But it is not only tradition that makes a particular practice a convention. The essential point of any convention is its justification. The British Convention, which requires Royal Assent, is . On the basis of an obvious logic: as Britain evolved from a monarchy to a democracy, the House of Commons became the main political power, and therefore the refusal of royal consent would not be considered politically legitimate1nate. This convention is now well established, but its legitimacy rests on the perception that there are good reasons for such a rule, not on its constitutional roots. Malcolmson and Myers cite the example of the Constitutional Convention in Britain that the monarch will not refuse to give Royal Assent to laws passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords: on the other hand, the law is a system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes to regulate the actions of its members and that it can enforce by imposing sanctions. • The convention is more optional, except for fear of moral or social alienation, but the law is more restrictive because the State apparatus ensures its observance.
• Laws are better than conventions from the point of view of a director because they are safe, they give the power to be implemented and there is also a fear among those who intend to violate them. But laws must evolve over time and situations, as well as the aspirations of those to whom they are applied. In jurisprudence, it is static and too restrictive, it can become counterproductive. • On the other hand, a director must take into account conventions in his decisions in order to achieve the objectives of law and order as well as welfare. Directors can never be able to enforce laws without worrying about local conventions, or fully rely on conventions to get better judgment or decision-making. When conventions are seen as absolute realities, they contribute to dogmatism, which in turn leads to conflict. This does not mean that conventions should be absolutely ignored as unreal and therefore useless. Instead, according to Buddhist thought, a wise person chooses common ground without considering conventions as ultimate or ignoring them when they are fruitful. The obligation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability and to ensure equal and effective protection of persons with disabilities (article 5 of the Convention) requires both the incorporation of the prohibition into national law and, preferably, into national constitutions and the adoption of comprehensive legislation on discrimination in all areas of public and private life. The exact form that such provisions should take depends on the existing laws and the respective legal system of a State Party.