Editing Parliamentary procedure (section)

==History==
{{main|History of parliamentary procedure}}
The term ''parliamentary procedure'' gets its name from its use in the [[parliamentary system]] of government.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Robert III |first=Henry M. |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780517190036 |title=Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief |publisher=Da Capo Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-306-82019-9 |edition=2nd |location=Philadelphia, PA |pages=5 |display-authors=etal |url-access=registration}}</ref>

In the 16th and 17th century, the [[Parliament of England|parliaments of England]] began adopting rules of order.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Robert |first=Henry M. |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780306813542 |title=Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised |publisher=Da Capo Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-306-82020-5 |edition=11th |location=Philadelphia, PA |pages=xxxiii–xxxiv |display-authors=etal |url-access=registration}}</ref> In the 1560s, Sir Thomas Smyth began the process of writing down accepted procedures and published a book about them for the [[House of Commons of England|House of Commons]] in 1583.<ref name=":0" /> Early rules included:
* One subject should be discussed at a time (adopted 1581)<ref name=":0" /><ref>Slater, Victor Louis. (2002). [https://books.google.com/books?id=kVxZ-I7lVQMC&pg=PA72&dq= ''The Political History of Tudor and Stuart England: A Sourcebook,'' p.  72]. {{ISBN|9780203995402}}</ref>
* Personal attacks are to be avoided in debate (1604)<ref name=":0" />
* Debate must be limited to the merits of the question (1610)<ref name=":0" />
* Division of a question into parts to be voted on separately (1640)<ref name=":0" />

===Westminster procedures===
The [[Westminster system|Westminster parliamentary procedures]] are followed in several [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, as well as in the Republic of Ireland.

In Canada, for example, the [[House of Commons of Canada|House of Commons]] uses ''House of Commons Procedure and Practice'' as its primary procedural authority. Others include [[Arthur Beauchesne]]'s ''Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada'', [[Bourinot's Rules of Order|Sir John George Bourinot's ''Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada'']], and [[Erskine May]]'s [[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|''The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament'']] from Britain.<ref>{{cite web |last= |first= |year=2011 |title=Parliamentary Procedure – General Article – Compendium of Procedure Home – House of Commons. Canada |url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprocedure-e.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100204021216/http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprocedure-e.htm |archive-date=Feb 4, 2010 |access-date=15 February 2011 |work=Parliament of Canada}}</ref>

===American procedures===
The rules of the [[United States Congress]] were developed from parliamentary procedures used in Britain.<ref>Jefferson, Thomas. (1820). [https://books.google.com/books?id=46k-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PR6&dq= ''A manual of parliamentary practice for the use of the Senate of the United States,'' p. vi].</ref> Many nations' legislatures follow American parliamentary procedure,{{citation needed|date=January 2024}} including [[Indonesia]], the [[Philippines]], [[Mexico]] and [[South Korea]].

===Other===
The [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]] (1957) states<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-06-07 |title=Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Part 6, Title I, Chapter 1, Section 1, Articles 232, 240, and 249 |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/art_232/oj |access-date=2024-06-11 |website=EUR-Lex |language=en}}</ref> that each of the [[European Parliament]], [[Council of the European Union]], and [[European Commission]] adopt their own rules. For the Parliament, these are the [[Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament]].

The procedures of the [[Diet of Japan]] moved away from the British parliamentary model, when in [[Occupied Japan]], there were efforts to align Japanese parliamentary procedures with American congressional practices.<ref>Reischauer, Edwin O. and Marius B. Jansen. (1977). [https://books.google.com/books?id=BTPNlLIy2soC&pg=PA250&dq= ''The Japanese Today: Change and Continuity,'' p. 250].</ref> In Japan, informal negotiations are more important than formal procedures.<ref>Mulgan, Aurelia George. (2000). [https://books.google.com/books?id=l_78iQKtaJMC&pg=PA292&dq= ''The Politics of Agriculture in Japan,'' p. 292].</ref>

In Italy, written rules govern the [[Italian Parliament|Houses of the Parliament]]. The [[Constitutional Court of Italy|Constitutional Court]] judges the limits beyond which these regulations cannot go, exceeding the parliamentary or political function (judgement n. 120 of 2014)<ref>The "functionalist" criterion (set by the Bill, on the initiative of Senator Maritati: Bill n. 1560/XVI) identified – inside parliamentary Institutions – acts of political bodies which, on the one hand, are not linked to the functions (legislative, political address or inspection) but which, on the other hand, are not classified as high-level administration: {{cite journal|last1=Buonomo|first1=Giampiero|title=Il nodo dell'autodichia da Ponzio a Pilato|journal=Golem Informazione|date=2014|url=https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89413589|access-date=2016-04-11|archive-date=2016-03-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324160801/https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89413589|url-status=dead}}</ref> and on their bad application when a law is passed.<ref>{{in lang|it}} [https://www.academia.edu/38400055/La_Corte_costituzionale_ancora_irrisolta_sul_ricorso_delle_minoranze_parlamentari_coautore_M._Cerase_ G. Buonomo e M. Cerase, ''La Corte costituzionale ancora irrisolta sul ricorso delle minoranze parlamentari (ord. n. 17/2019)'', Forum di Quaderni costituzionali, 13 febbraio 2019].</ref>