Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T21:10:49.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Philosophy of Law

The Impasse of Constitutional Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2025

Jacob Weinrib
Jacob Weinrib
Affiliation:
Queen's University

Summary

Constitutional rights are often seen as invitations to engage in all things considered moral reasoning about how public authorities should act. The Impasse of Constitutional Rights challenges this widely accepted view by showing that it generates an irresolvable deadlock between rival theories of constitutional rights that share the same defects. This Element develops the alternative idea that rights-based constitutional order has its own distinctive moral project, which consists in rendering public authority accountable to the inherent rights of each legal subject. Taking this project seriously requires reconceiving the basic building blocks of rights-based constitutional order: justification, purposive interpretation, and proportionality. The resulting account both escapes the impasse to which the leading contemporary theories of constitutional rights succumb and expounds the normative connection between rights-based constitutional order and its most fundamental doctrines.
Get access

Keywords

constitutional rightsconstitutional interpretationproportionalitylimitation clausesjustification
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Philosophy of Law
Online ISBN: 9781009010078
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 06 March 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, Eric M. (2018), Canadian Constitutional Interpretation, in The Fundamental of Statutory Interpretation (Hutchinson, Cameron, ed.), 129–146 (Toronto: LexisNexis).Google Scholar
Ahmed, Dawood & Bulmer, Elliot W. (2014), Limitation Clauses, International Idea Constitution-Building Primer, www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/limitation-clauses.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2002), A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Rivers, Julian, trans.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2003), Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality, 16:2 Ratio Juris 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2007), Thirteen Replies, in Law, Rights, and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Pavlakos, George, ed.), 333–366 (Oxford: Hart).Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2014), Constitutional Rights and Proportionality, 22 Revus 51.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2018), Proportionality and Rationality, in Proportionality: New Challenges, New Frontiers (Jackson, Vicki C. & Tushnet, Mark, eds.), 13–29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2021), Law’s Ideal Dimension (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed (1992), The Case of the Missing Amendments: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 124.Google Scholar
Barak, Aharon (2005), Purposive Interpretation in Law (Bashi, Sari, trans.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, Aharon (2007), Proportional Effect: The Israeli Experience, 57 U.T.L.J. 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, Aharon (2012), Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Kalir, Doron, trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, Aharon (2018), A Research Agenda for the Future, in Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges (Jackson, Vicki C. and Tushnet, Mark, eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Beatty, David M. (2004), The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy (1843), Anarchical Fallacies; Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued during the French Revolution, in The Works of Jeremy Bentham (vol. 2) (Bowring, John, ed.), 489–534 (Edinburgh: William Tait).Google Scholar
von Bernstorff, Jochen (2016), Proportionality without Balancing: Why Judicial Ad Hoc Balancing Is Unnecessary, in Reasoning Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement (McCrudden Liora Lazarus, Christopher & Bowles, Nigel, eds.), 63–86 (Oxford: Hart).Google Scholar
Bielefeldt, Heiner (2020), Limiting Permissible Limitations: How to Preserve the Substance of Religious Freedom, 15 Relig. & Hum. Rts. 3–19.Google Scholar
Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang (2016), Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings (Künkler, Mirjam & Stein, Tine, eds.) (Underwood, Jim & Dunlap, Thomas, trans.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Bomhoff, Jacco (2013), Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert H. (1971), Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1.Google Scholar
Brkan, Maja (2018), The Concept of Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Peeling the Onion to Its Core, 14 Eur. Const. Rev. 332.Google Scholar
Brudner, Alan (2009), What Theory of Rights Best Explain the Oakes Test? in The Limitation of Charter Rights: Critical Essays on R. V. Oakes (Webber, Grégoire C. N. & Tremblay, Luc, eds.), 59–74 (Montreal: Les Editions Themis).Google Scholar
Cappelletti, Mauro (1985), The Expanding Role of Judicial Review in Modern Societies, in The Role of Courts in Society (Shetreet, Simon, ed.), 79–96 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff).Google Scholar
Cappelletti, Mauro (1986), Repudiating Montesquieu? The Expansion and Legitimacy of “Constitutional Justice”, 35 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Cappelletti, (1988), The Expanding Role of Judicial Review in Modern Societies, in The Role of Courts in Society (Shetreet, Simon, ed.) (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff).Google Scholar
Chapman, Bruce (2011), Ernie’s Three Worlds, 61:2 U.T.L.J. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Eliya, Moshe & Porat, Iddo (2011), Proportionality and the Culture of Justification, 59 Am. J. Comp. L. 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Eliya, Moshe & Porat, Iddo (2018), The Administrative Origins of Constitutional Rights and Global Constitutionalism, in Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges (Jackson, Vicki C. & Tushnet, Mark, ed.), 103–129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Descartes, René (2017), Meditations on First Philosophy (Cottingham, John, ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Dürig, Günter (1988), An Introduction to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, in The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Karpen, Ulrich, ed.), 11–24 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1978), Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1990), A Bill of Rights for Britain (London: Chatto & Windus).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1996), Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Believe It, 25:2 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (2006), Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (2011), Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Edelstein, Dan (2018), On the Spirit of Rights (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart Ely, John (1980), Democracy and Distrust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Essert, Christoper (2024), Property Law in the Society of Equals (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feasby, Colin (2022), The Evolving Approach to Charter Interpretation, 60:1 Alb. L. Rev. 35.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (1972), Some Professorial Fallacies about Rights, 4 Adel. L. Rev. 377.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (1980), Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Finnis, John (1985), A Bill of Rights for Britain? The Moral of Contemporary Jurisprudence, 71 Proc. Brit. Ac. 303.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (1994), Law, Morality, and “Sexual Orientation,” 69 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1049.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (2013), A Response to Harel, Hope, and Schwartz, 8 Jrslm Rev. Legal Stud. 147.Google Scholar
Finnis, John (2015), Grounding Human Rights in Natural Law, 60 Am. J. Juris. 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley (2008), Intention Is all There Is: A Critical Analysis of Aharon Barak’s Purposive Interpretation in Law, 29:3 Cardozo L. Rev. 1109.Google Scholar
Fleming, James E. (2004), Securing Deliberative Democracy, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 1435.Google Scholar
Frantz, Laurent B. (1962), The First Amendment in the Balance, 71 Yale L. J. 1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Danny (2014), Pro-Tanto Versus Absolute Rights, 45 Phil. Forum 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibaldi, Oscar M. (1976), General Limitations on Human Rights: The Principle of Legality, 17 Harv. Int’l L. J. 503.Google Scholar
Gardbaum, Stephen (2014), Proportionality and Democratic Constitutionalism, in Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Huscroft, Grant, Bradley, W. Miller, & Webber, Grégoire, eds.), 259–283 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Jamal (2018), Foreword: Rights as Trumps, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 28.Google Scholar
Greene, Jamal (2021), How Rights Went Wrong (New York: HarperCollins).Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (1994), Human Rights and Judicial Review in Germany, in Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective (Beatty, David, ed.), 277–295 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff).Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2007), Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence, 57 UTLJ 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2009), Freedom of Speech in a Globalized World, in Extreme Speech and Democracy (Hare, Ivan and Weinstein, James, eds.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2010), The Basic Law at 60 – Identity and Change, 11 German L. J. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2015), The Role of Fundamental Rights after Sixty-Five Years of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Germany, 13 Int’l J. Const. L. 9.Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2016), Constitutionalism: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2019), What Exactly Is Political about Constitutional Adjudication? in Judicial Power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations (Landfried, Christine, ed.), 307–317 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Dieter (2020), Dieter Grimm: Advocate of the Constitution (Collings, Justin, trans.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Democracy (Rehg, William, trans.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. (2007), Constitutional Law of Canada (vol. 2) (Toronto: Thomson Carswell).Google Scholar
Humphrey, John P. (1979), The Just Requirements of Morality, Public Order, and the General Welfare in a Democratic Society, in The Practice of Freedom (St, R.. Macdonald, J. & John, P. Humphrey, eds.), 137–156 (Toronto: Butterworths).Google Scholar
Iacobucci, Frank (2003), Reconciling Rights: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to Competing Charter Rights, 20 Sup. C. L. Rev. 137.Google Scholar
Jellinek, Walter (1946), Grundrechte und Gesetzesvorbehalt, 1 Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 4.Google Scholar
Charles Kiss, Alexandre (1981), Permissible Limitations on Rights, in The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Henkin, Louis, ed.), 290–310 (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Klatt, Matthias (2014), An Egalitarian Defense of Proportionality-Based Balancing: A Reply to Luc B. Tremblay, 12 Int’l J. Const. L. 891.Google Scholar
Klatt, Matthias & Meister, Moritz (2012), The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias (2007), Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the Place and Limits of Proportionality Requirement, in Law, Rights, and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Pavlakos, George, ed.), 131–166 (Oxford: Hart).Google Scholar
Kumm, Mattias (2010), The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights-Based Proportionality Review, 4 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts. 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias (2018), Is the Structure of Human Rights Practice Defensible? Three Puzzles and Their Solution, in Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges (Jackson, Vicki C. & Tushnet, Mark, ed.), 51–74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kyritsis, Dimitrios (2014), Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine, 34 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Ingrid (2018), Core Socio-Economic Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenaerts, Koen (2019), Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU, 20 German L. J. 779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letsas, George (2007), A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marauhn, Thilo & Ruppel, Nadine (2008), Balancing Conflicting Rights: Konrad Hesse’s Notion of “Praktische Konkordanz” and the German Federal Constitutional Court, in Conflicts between Fundamental Rights (Brems, Eva, ed.), 273–296 (Antwerp: Intersentia).Google Scholar
Marcic, René (1968), Duties and Limitations upon Rights, 9 Int’l Comm. Jur. Rev. 59.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (2010), The Constitution of the French Republic Adopted November 4, 1848, in Marx & Engels: Collected Works (vol. 10) (Vladimirova, Anna and Zubrilova, Lyudgarda, eds.), 567–580 (London: Lawrence & Wishart).Google Scholar
Meiklejohn, Alexander (1961), The First Amendment Is an Absolute, Sup. Ct. Rev. 245.Google Scholar
Miller, Bradley W. (2008), Justification and Rights Limitation, in Expounding the Constituion: Essays in Constitutional Theory (Huscroft, Grant, ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Möller, Kai (2012a), The Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, Kai (2012b), Proportionality: Challenging the Critics, 10 Int’l J. Const. L. 709.Google Scholar
Möller, Kai (2014), Proportionality and Rights Inflation, in Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Huscroft, Grant, Miller, Bradley W., & Webber, Grégoire, eds.), 155–172 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, Kai (2018), US Constitutional Law, Proportionality, and the Global Model, in Proportionality: New Challenges, New Frontiers (Jackson, Vicki C. & Tushnet, Mark, eds.), 130–147 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Montague, Phillip (2001), When Rights Conflict, 7 Legal Theory 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mureinik, Ettienne (1994), A Bridge to Where – Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights, 10 South Afr. J. Hum. Rts. 31.Google Scholar
Oberdiek, John (2008), Specifying Rights Out of Necessity, 28 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberdiek, John (2010), Specifying Constitutional Rights, 27 Const. Commentary 231.Google Scholar
Örücü, Esin (1986), The Core of Rights and Freedoms: The Limits of Limits, in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (Campbell, Tom, ed.), 37–51 (New York: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Paine, Thomas (1992), The Rights of Man (Claeys, Gregory, ed.) (Indianapolis: Hackett).Google Scholar
Poscher, Ralf (2021), Proportionality and the Bindingness of Fundamental Rights, in Proportionality in Crime Control and Criminal Justice (Billis, Emmanouil, Knust, Nandor, & Rui, Jon Petter, eds.), 49–68 (Oxford: Hart).Google Scholar
Rao, Neomi (2008), On the Use and Abuse of Dignity in Constitutional Law, 14 Colum. J. Eur. L. 201.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1999), A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2007), Anti-Archimedeanism, in Ronald Dworkin (Ripstein, Arthur, ed.), 1–21 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2021), Kant and the Laws of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Julian (2006), Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, 65 Cambridge L. J. 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Julian (2012), Constitutional Rights and Statutory Limitations, in Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy (Klatt, Matthias, ed.), 248–272 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David Ross, William (1930), The Right and the Good (Straton-Lake, Philip, ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schafer-Landau, Russ (1995), Specifying Absolute Rights, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 209.Google Scholar
Schladebach, Marcus (2014), Praktische Konkordanz Als Verfassungsrechtliches Kollisionprinzip: Eine Verteidigung, 53 Der Staat 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven D. (1994), Moral Realism, Pluralistic Community, and the Judicial Imposition of Principle: A Comment on Perry, 88:1 Nw. U. L. Rev. 183.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl (2005), Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Schwab, George, trans.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Martin (2011), Legal Positivism as an Idea about Morality, 61 U.T.L.J. 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Martin (2012), Planning Positivism and Natural Law, 25 Can. J.L. & Jur. 219.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alex and Mathews, Jud (2019), Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stourzh, Gerald (2021), Democratic Participation and Human Rights Protection as a System of Equal Rights (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter (1992), Analysis and Metaphysics: An Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis Thomson, Judith (1986), Self-Defense and Rights, in Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory (Parent, William, ed.), 33–48 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Thorburn, Malcolm (2016), Proportionality, in Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law (Dyzenhaus, David & Thorburn, Malcolm, eds.), 305–322 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Luc B. (2014), An Egalitarian Defense of Proportionality-Based Balancing, 12 Int’l J Const. L. 864.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Luc B. (2015), An Egalitarian Defense of Proportionality-Based Balancing, 12 Int’l J. Const. L. 900.Google Scholar
Tsakyrakis, Stavros (2009), Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights, 7 Int’l J. Const. L. 468.Google Scholar
Twining, William (1975), The Contemporary Significance of Bentham’s Anarchical Fallacies, 61 ARSP 325.Google Scholar
Urbina, Francisco J. (2017), A Critique of Balancing and Proportionality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (1999), Law and Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, Mark (2020), A.V. Dicey and the Common Law Constitutional Tradition: A Legal Turn of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Grégoire (2012), The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Webber, Grégoire (2013), Rights and the Rule of Law in the Balance, 129 Law Q. Rev. 399.Google Scholar
Webber, Grégoire (2014), On the Loss of Rights, in Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Huscroft, Grant, Bradley, W. Miller, & Webber, Grégoire, eds.), 123–154 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Grégoire & Yowell, Paul (2018), Introduction, in Legislated Rights: Securing Human Rights Through Legislation, 1–26 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinrib, Ernest J. (1995), The Idea of Private Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob (2016), Dimensions of Dignity: The Theory and Practice of Modern Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob (2017), When Trumps Clash: Dworkin and the Doctrine of Proportionality, 30 Ratio Juris 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob (forthcoming 2025 ), The Essence of Rights and the Limits of Proportionality, in The Promise of Legality: Critical Reflections upon the Work of T.R.S. Allan (Cartier, Geneviève & Walters, Mark, eds.) (Oxford: Hart Publishing).Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob (2024), What Is Purposive Interpretation? 74:1 U.T.L.J. 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinrib, Lorraine E. (2002), Canada’s Charter of Rights: Paradigm Lost? 6 Rev. Const Stud. 119.Google Scholar
Heath Wellman, Christopher (1995), On Conflicts between Rights, 14 Law & Phil. 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucca, Lorenzo (2007), Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Zylberman, Ariel (2022), Moral Rights without Balancing, 179 Phil. Stud. 549a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Impasse of Constitutional Rights
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Impasse of Constitutional Rights
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Impasse of Constitutional Rights
Available formats
×