Why is the United Kingdom’s constitution described as uncodified rather than unwritten?

The United Kingdom’s constitution is described as uncodified rather than unwritten because the term "unwritten" is misleading; many of its fundamental components exist in written form.1

While the U.K. lacks a single, formal document titled "The Constitution," its constitutional framework is composed of various written sources, including:

• Statutes: Acts of Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement, and the Parliament Act of 1911.1
• Judicial Decisions: Rulings by courts of law that interpret constitutional principles.21
• Works of Authority: Scholarly texts, such as Albert Venn Dicey’s Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, which are considered part of the constitutional fabric.2

Because these elements are not gathered into one comprehensive document, the constitution is "uncodified". Furthermore, the system is flexible, meaning constitutional rules can be modified through ordinary legislative procedures rather than requiring a rigid amendment process. Conversely, even countries with "written" constitutions often rely on unwritten conventions and judicial interpretations to function, demonstrating that no written document can fully exhaust a state's constitutional law.21