Constitutional conventions are rules of political practice accepted as binding by those concerned in the working of the constitution. This peculiar category of constitutional rules occupies an important position in the constitutional systems of many states, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Whereas in the United Kingdom much scholarly attention has been paid to conventions, the study of conventions in the Netherlands is still in its infancy. One of the questions that features prominently in the academic and judicial debate in the UK is whether conventions, despite not being legal rules, can be enforced by the courts. This question has hitherto not been discussed in the Netherlands. The objective of this article is to look at the legal relevance, or irrelevance, of constitutional conventions in both jurisdictions and to find explanations for the observed differences and similarities in this regard. First, this paper analyses the legal relevance of constitutional conventions before courts in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands respectively. Second, this paper compares the two jurisdictions with regard to this matter and tries to find constitutional explanations for the observed differences and similarities. In analysing this issue, the article attempts to provide an example of how comparative legal research in the area of constitutional law can foster the development of constitutional concepts.

中文翻译：

---

联合王国和荷兰的宪法公约的法律意义

宪法惯例是政治实践的规则，受到宪法工作有关人员的约束。宪法规则的这一特殊类别在包括英国和荷兰在内的许多州的宪法体系中占有重要地位。在英国，关于公约的学术研究得到了很多关注，而在荷兰，关于公约的研究仍处于起步阶段。在英国的学术和司法辩论中，突出的问题之一是，公约虽然不是法律规则，但是否可以由法院执行。迄今为止，荷兰尚未讨论此问题。本文的目的是研究法律相关性或不相关性，双方司法管辖区的宪法公约，并找到在这方面观察到的异同的解释。首先，本文分别分析了英国和荷兰法院审理制宪公约的法律意义。其次，本文在这方面比较了两个司法管辖区，并试图为观察到的异同找到宪法解释。在分析这个问题时，本文试图提供一个示例，说明宪法方面的比较法研究如何促进宪法概念的发展。其次，本文在这方面比较了两个司法管辖区，并试图为观察到的异同找到宪法解释。在分析这个问题时，本文试图提供一个示例，说明宪法学领域的比较法研究如何促进宪法概念的发展。其次，本文在这方面比较了两个司法管辖区，并试图为观察到的异同找到宪法解释。在分析这个问题时，本文试图提供一个示例，说明宪法学领域的比较法研究如何促进宪法概念的发展。