Introduction
With globalisation, the rule of law, the dictates of democracy and the need for human rights and freedoms have quickly gained currency in the entire globe. Civil activists, donor community and the United Nations continue in their clarion call for the rule of law and natural justice to prevail. In that context, countries continue to embrace progressive legal regimes that facilitate proper law making and enforcement. Indeed, the law occupies a central position in ensuring justice, peace and cohesion in societies. It remains the only determinant of conflict resolution mechanisms that is fair and just to every citizen. However, even with the need for proper law making and enforcement, it is incipient to appreciate the fact that the law cannot occur in a vacuum. To this extent, jurisdictions apply a practise in consonance with their traditions and societal conceptions. It is on this premise that this paper would examine the difference between the United Kingdom and Kuwait in terms of law making and enforcement. It should be appreciated on the onset that the unique characteristics of the United Kingdom and the Kuwait necessarily justify the application of different legal regimes.
United Kingdom
Law making in the United Kingdom can be said to derive from two main sources; the parliament and the judiciary. Parliament makes the laws through legislative processes while the judiciary makes the laws through the body of legal precedents that they lay out. It should be noted at this point that the United Kingdom has a constitution. It is often misconceived that the United Kingdom operates on no constitution. Rather, the nation has a constitution. The distinction that one needs to take cognisance of is the fact that their constitution is unwritten and located in scattered pieces of law. One key law making the constitution is the common law of England. The Common Law refer to the body of law that was formulated through the Common law system that was operational in England in the old times. This Common Law has muted and developed into a body of law, recognised and practised by countries popularly known as the Common Law countries. The United Kingdom completes the list of Common Law countries. These laws have been formulated previously and it is upon the courts to see to it that they are enforced.
It is imperative at this point to note that the United Kingdom legal regime is strong and effective. In the United Kingdom, the rule of law as advocated by A.V. Dicey is practised to the letter. To this extent, the Common Law is enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction and it is incipient on the offended to report the matter and commence litigation. The judiciary in the United Kingdom is organic and appreciative of the current world conditions and situations. This is to say that the law is not merely interpreted to the letter by the courts, but effectively applied in recognition of prevailing societal trends. In this context, it should be appreciated that law enforcement in the United Kingdom is not only alert of the Common Law provisions, but is equally cognisant of the need to incorporate the international law ratified by the United Kingdom government.
In the United Kingdom, law making hence lies on the hands of the legislature. Parliament comes up with a body of law called bills which upon enactment becomes Acts of Parliament. The spirit of Acts of Parliament is twofold. One, to develop new law on emerging issues that the current body of law was silent on, and two, to amend laws that no longer find relevance in the contemporary society that prevails in the United Kingdom. The legal regime was wise enough to place safeguard against abuse of this process. First, the Courts under separation of powers retain the role of administering justice and interpretation of the law. In that regard, they also have the powers of declaring legislated laws unconstitutional if they see it as such. This provides reprieve to constitutionalists who may find legislations infringing to the rights and democratic nobles of the citizens. That the courts have the interpretive power of the law also confers upon them the enforcement. This enforcement, however, is carried out in conjunction with the Police Service under the executive. In overall, the United Kingdom applies the rule of law through law making and practises an enforcement policy that is close to excellence.
Republic of Kuwait
In Kuwait, the situation is different. This could be explained by two main factors. One Kuwait, unlike the United Kingdom, has a state religion. As such, Islam is the state religion of Kuwait. This has had its effects in the legal regime in Kuwait. The Sharia law is part and parcel of law in Kuwait. In fact, it is stated in the Constitution of Kuwait in article two that Islam is the state religion and by extension, Sharia law is a source of legislation. Another factor that affects law making and enforcement is the political set up in Kuwait. Kuwait has a monarch system that enjoys most powers. This limits the law making capacity and independence of Parliament. In addition, the exposure of Kuwait to several international regimes has seen it embrace a pluralistic approach that incorporates British Common Law, the French Civil law, the Sharia Law and the Egyptian Law. It, therefore, applies a combination of all the regimes in the law making process and the enforcement.
Kuwait law making is, however, guided by the Kuwait Constitution, which is the supreme law on the land. In addition, the National Assembly has the mandate granted by the constitution to make and enact laws. To this extent, Kuwait borrows from the British Parliamentary model. The point of departure lies in the monarchical government of Kuwait. The leader of government is the Monarchy who also wields law making powers. However, since the monarchy is not absolute, it derives its powers from the Kuwait constitution. This enables the application of the rule of law in both law making and enforcement.
However, one must appreciate the system of Kuwait for its complexity in law enforcement. The application of the four legal regimes presents the nation with a tedious and complicated law enforcement regime. In the long run, Sharia Law seems to take the day. The people are subject to Sharia Law and prefer interpretations guided by the provisions of the Sharia Law. This, however, does not displace the other legal regimes from application. They to guide law enforcement as long as they are in consistency with the Kuwait Constitution. In the long run, the legal regime in Kuwait must be appreciated for its progress towards realisation of the rule of law and natural justice.
Conclusion
It is imperative to note that rule of law is the common thread among jurisdictions that enjoy democracy and freedom. Both the United Kingdom and Kuwait have unique challenges in law formulation and enforcement. However, being signatories of the United Nations treaties and conventions, both intend to implement progressive legal regimes that encourage the rule of law.
Bibliography
Khedr, A. A. (2013). Kuwait’s Legal System and Legal Research. Hauser Global Law School, 1.
Payandeh, M. (2010). The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart. European Journal of International Law, 21(2), 32-42.
Phillips. (2012). The Birth and First Steps of The U.K. Supreme Court. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2(2), 3-5.
Tucker , A. (2011). Uncertainty in the Rule of Recognition and in the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30-41.
Vergier, J. d. (2012). Instruments of Law Reforms: the Supreme Court and the Law Commissions In United Kingdom. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1(2), 32-35.
Zander , M. (2012). The Law-Making Process. Cambridge University Journal, 2(1), 23-65.
