There are difficult global challenges that need to be addressed. In response, many have argued for the increased constitutionalization of international law. An argument is often also made that the international order is already constitutionalized in some meaningful sense and that there are founding conditions within the international order that represent something like a global constitution. Nevertheless, when surveying the literature on constitutionalization one is often struck by a general ambiguity about what the term means and with how constitutionalization is meant to operate between theory and institutional practice. In particular, there seems to be an overall ambiguity regarding what is being constituted by the processes of constitutionalization, about how these processes operate, and with whether this legal order is in fact creating the type of progressive cosmopolitanism that is often assumed. To address these ambiguities, this article will seek to better understand what appeals to constitutionalization generally mean and to expose key conceptual problems. The goal in doing so is to highlight areas that need greater conceptual attention and to recommend potential solutions, so that more cosmopolitan minded scholars can feel more confident in prescribing constitutionalization as part of their normative catalogue.

I argue that legal and constitutional theory should avoid the idea of constituent power. It is unhelpful in seeking to understand the authority of law and the place of written constitutions in such an understanding. In particular, it results in a deep ambivalence about whether authority is located within or without the legal order. That ambivalence also manifests itself within positivist legal theory, which explains the affinity between theories of constituent power and legal positivist accounts of authority. Legal theory should then focus on the question of law’s authority as one entirely internal to legal order, thus making the question of constituent power superfluous.

Should state borders matter for claims of distributive justice? The article explores, only to reject, the best reasons for an ‘Anti-Cosmopolitan’ position which grants some minimum international obligations, including social and economic human rights. At the same time this Anti-Cosmopolitanism rejects distinctly distributive principles of justice, familiar from discussions of justice among compatriots: There are no further limits on permissible global inequalities. ‘Anti-Cosmopolitans’ do not deny that the tangled web of domestic and international institutions has a massive impact on individuals, their life plans and opportunities, albeit often indirectly and surreptitiously. What they deny is that claims to equality or limits to inequality should apply across state borders. The article explores what it is about states that can justify such a disjunct in the normative claims individuals have against each other. Several arguments about such alleged salient aspects of states and their constitutions are considered, but are found lacking. The main conclusion is to challenge the reasons Anti-Cosmopolitans offer against bringing distributive principles to the ‘Global Basic Structure’.

After 9/11 state actors in different parts of the world and to various degrees decided to give security and counterterrorism measures priority over human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order to legitimize their policy choices, governmental actors used normative argumentation to redefine what is ‘appropriate’ to ensure security. We argue that, in the long run, this may lead to a setback dynamic hollowing out established human and civil rights norms. In this article, we develop a theoretical and analytical framework, oriented along the model of the life cycle of norms, in order to trace ‘bad’ norm dynamics in the field of counterterrorism. We conceptualize the norm erosion process, particularly focusing on arguments such as speech acts put forward by governmental norm challengers and their attempts to create new meaning and understanding. We also draw on convergence theory and argue that when a coalition of norm challengers develops, using the same or similar patterns of arguments, established international normative orders protecting human rights and civil liberties might be weakened over time and a more fundamental process of norm erosion may take place.

The recent wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East and Northern Africa has sparked a renewed attention to democratization across the world. One of many intriguing questions in this context is whether this trend will be spread globally and will flash another wave of democratization among some regions and countries where democratic euphoria has faded away. Another intriguing question is whether this new wave, in the Middle East or elsewhere, will take a constitutional path or will evolve through undemocratic and unconstitutional channels. In this light, it looks perfectly timely to discuss the lessons from and the modern prospects of building constitutional democracies in post-Soviet countries.

This article offers perspectives on challenges facing post-Soviet higher courts in the effort to promote constitutional democracy in their countries. While it argues that there are many such challenges and that their roots are mostly deep in the political culture, selected and discussed are some specific instances which starkly expose the patterns of constitutional perversion and the most relevant limitations facing post-Soviet courts in our days. The solutions to these are seen in the incremental process of institutional learning hence the article suggests some designer strategies which may help moving along this process.

The first section outlines what appears to be a peculiar vision of constitutionalism as embedded in respective societies and assesses this entrenched concept against accepted accounts of Western constitutionalism. The second section discusses some specific challenges to development of constitutionalism in post-Soviet countries, concentrating on inherited mindset and legal culture, as well as corrupt political technologies and flaws in the design of constitutional courts. The third section discusses two illustrative cases before higher tribunals to demonstrate what courts face in the courtroom when confronting the described challenges.

This article presents a functional explanation of why proportionality has become one of the most successful legal transplants in contemporary constitutional law. It argues that proportionality helps judges mitigate what Robert Cover called the ‘inherent difficulty presented by the violence of the state’s law acting upon the free interpretative process’. More than alternative methods, proportionality calibrates the violence that the justification of state coercion inflicts on private (non-official) jurisgenerative interpretative processes in constitutional cases. The first three sections show, through an analysis of different constitutional styles which I label Doric, Ionic and Corinthian, how proportionality seeks to place a non-deontological conception of rights within a categorical structure of formal legal analysis. This method aims to synthesize fidelity to form and institutional structure (thesis) with ‘fact-sensitivity’ to contexts in which specific controversies arise (antithesis). Proportionality positions judges vis-à-vis the parties and the parties in relation to one another differently from other constitutional methods. The next sections distinguish between constitutional perception and reality. While the normative appeal of proportionality can be traced to the perception of its integrative aims, in reality, judicial technique does not entirely live up to those aims. Proportionality succumbs to pressures from the centrifugal forces of universalism and particularism that it seeks to integrate. The final section draws on the works of Kant and Arendt and discusses the implications of an approach to constitutional method such as that reflected in the advent of proportionality for the project of constitutionalism more generally.