Comparative Constitutional Studies: Two Fields or One?

(2017) 13 Annual Review of Law and Social Science

27 Pages Posted: 22 Feb 2017

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: August 1, 2016

Abstract

This article reviews recent comparative research on constitutionalism and judicial review and argues that it is best understood as falling into two fields: comparative constitutional law (CCL) and comparative judicial politics. While both fields are directed at the same phenomenon – the global spread of constitutionalism and judicial review – their purposes and methods are quite different. CCL, for its part, is aimed at constructing constitutional law doctrine, understanding the methodologies of judicial recourse to foreign law, and investigating how similar-seeming constitutional principles take on different meanings in different legal systems. Comparative judicial politics, by contrast, consists of a range of political science research on the origins and ongoing dynamics of judicially enforced constitutionalism. The recent call for CCL to progress into comparative constitutional studies should accordingly be treated with caution. While there are opportunities for productive dialogue between the two fields, such dialogue needs to recognize the distinct identity of each.

Keywords: comparative constitutional law, comparative judicial politics

Suggested Citation

Roux, Theunis Robert, Comparative Constitutional Studies: Two Fields or One? (August 1, 2016). (2017) 13 Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2921603

Theunis Robert Roux (Contact Author)

University of New South Wales (UNSW) ( email )

Kensington
High St
Sydney, NSW 2052
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
61
Abstract Views
283
rank
381,792
PlumX Metrics