Research Paper
• Due 29 MARCH, 16:00pm
• 4500 words, which does not include the ‘Bibliography’ (which is required) but includes footnotes!
• References Format：AGLC
•More than 25 references
• The topic is ‘Comparative Study on the Constitutional Amendment Procedures between China and Australia’
Introduction
Constitutional amendment procedures are fundamental processes in any democratic country. These procedures allow for the changes and adaptations of the constitution to reflect the needs and desires of the society. The procedure for constitutional amendment differs from country to country, and it is important to understand the differences between these procedures to fully comprehend the political, social, and economic landscape of each country. This research paper will undertake a comparative study of the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia. China and Australia are two vastly different countries, but they share some similarities, such as having written constitutions. This paper will analyze the similarities and differences in the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia and evaluate their impact on the democratic processes of these countries.
Background
Australia is
Comparative Study on the Constitutional Amendment Procedures between China and Australia
Law students are required to use the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC) 4th edition referencing style, available online via the University of Melbourne (Melbourne University Law Review).
Introduction
The process of amending a constitution is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance. It provides an opportunity for constitutional change and adaptation to reflect the evolving needs and aspirations of the society. Constitutional amendment procedures differ from country to country, and it is important to understand the similarities and differences in these procedures to fully comprehend the political, social, and economic landscape of each country. This paper undertakes a comparative study of the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia. Despite being vastly different countries, both China and Australia have written constitutions. This paper analyzes the similarities and differences in the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia and evaluates their impact on the democratic processes of these countries.
Background
Australia is a federal parliamentary democracy, and its constitution is composed of eight chapters and 128 sections. The Australian Constitution is a written constitution that sets out the structure and powers of the Commonwealth Government, as well as the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. The Constitution can be amended by the Commonwealth Parliament through a process that involves a joint sitting of the two houses of Parliament and a referendum. In contrast, China’s Constitution is a written document that sets out the structure of the government, the functions of its various organs, and the rights and duties of citizens. However, unlike Australia, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China can be amended by the National People’s Congress (NPC) without the need for a referendum.
Comparative Analysis
The constitutional amendment procedures in Australia and China differ in several ways. Firstly, the process for amending the constitution in Australia requires a referendum. A referendum is a direct vote in which the entire electorate is invited to vote on a particular proposal. A constitutional amendment requires a double majority, meaning that it must be approved by a majority of voters in a majority of states, as well as by an overall majority of voters across the country. In contrast, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China can be amended by the National People’s Congress (NPC), which is the highest organ of state power. The NPC has the power to amend the Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
Secondly, the scope of the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia differ. The Australian Constitution contains detailed provisions on the amendment process, including the requirement for a referendum and the double majority. In contrast, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides only general guidelines for the amendment process, leaving the specifics to be determined by the NPC. This gives the NPC significant discretion in amending the Constitution, which has been criticized by some as undemocratic.
Thirdly, the role of the judiciary in the amendment process in China and Australia differs. In Australia, the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and can strike down laws that are inconsistent with it. This ensures that any proposed constitutional amendment is consistent with the existing Constitution and does not undermine its fundamental principles. In contrast, the judiciary in China has limited power to interpret the Constitution. The NPC is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, which has been criticized for limiting the independence of the judiciary.
Impact on Democratic Processes
The differences in the constitutional amendment procedures in China and Australia have a significant impact on the democratic processes of these countries. The requirement for a referendum in Australia ensures that any proposed constitutional amendment has broad-based support from the electorate. This enhances the legitimacy of the constitutional amendment and ensures that the voice of the people is heard. In contrast, the lack of a referendum requirement in China raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the constitutional amendment process.
The role of the judiciary in the amendment process is also crucial for upholding the principles of democracy. In Australia, the High Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, ensuring that any proposed constitutional amendment does not undermine the fundamental principles of the Constitution. This protects the rights of citizens and ensures that the Constitution remains
