This introduction sets the stage for the special issue on the ‘ideologies of global constitutionalism’. It describes the competing approaches for conceptualising and analysing global constitutionalism. It then turns to highlight the overlooked ideologies underlying global constitutionalism through a thematic exposition of the articles in the special issue. In particular, the introduction questions the conventional link between global constitutionalism and neo-liberalism, explores a materialist analysis of global constitutionalism, analyses the validity of the liberal global constitutionalist paradigm for non-liberal regimes, and discusses the potential for the abuse of that liberal paradigm through the migration of constitutional doctrine.

An international consensus on the content of domestic constitutional law has structural ‘rights’-related components. The former requires roughly democratic systems for choosing representatives/executives. The consensus favours some forms of judicialised constitutional review, though the precise form is open to choice. The rights component includes a standard list of ‘core’ civil rights, including in this category equality along a number of dimensions – though not class or income. The rights-component is fundamentally neo-liberal. This is clearest in connection with ‘second generation’ social and economic rights, which – the consensus holds – can be recognised in a constitution but should not be vigorously enforceable (in systems where there is judicial enforcement of constitutional rights). The rights of free expression and political association must be specified in ways that allow political challenges to be mounted against efforts – including legislative programmes of political parties that control governments – to resist the neo-liberal policy agenda. Departures from this consensus are described as departures, not from ‘neo-liberal’ or even ‘liberal’ constitutionalism, but as departures from constitutionalism as such. We could ‘thin down’ the idea of constitutionalism quite a bit without abandoning constitutionalism’s core commitment to avoiding arbitrary government action.

The unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has emerged as a highly successful, albeit still controversial, export in comparative constitutional law. The doctrine has often been defended as protecting a delegation from the people to the political institutions that they created. Other work has noted the doctrine’s potential utility in guarding against abusive constitutionalism. In this article, we consider how these justifications fare when expanded to encompass claims against the original constitution itself, rather than a later amendment to the text. That is, beyond the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine, can or should there be a doctrine of an unconstitutional constitution? Our question is spurred by a puzzling 2015 case from Honduras where the Supreme Court held an unamendable one-term limit on presidential terms, as well as protective provisions punishing attempts to alter that limit, to be unconstitutional. What is particularly striking about the case is that these provisions were not later amendments to the constitution, but rather parts of the original 1982 constitution itself. Thus, this article examines the possibility of ‘an unconstitutional constitution’, what we predict to be the next trend in global constitutionalism.

The article addresses the question of how to study global constitutional law by suggesting a material methodology. Drawing from previous studies of the notion of the material constitution, both from materialist and institutionalist types (Marx, Mortati, Poulantzas), the article proposes to look at the development of global constitutional law, in its many instantiations, in terms of its relation with the state. Accounts of the autonomy of global constitutional law are requalified in terms of relative autonomy. More specifically, global constitutional law is conceived as a legal construction functional to the transformation of the contemporary state. From the perspective of the material study of constitutional law, the state is still deemed to be the main unit of analysis, but, at the same time, state-centred accounts based on an exceptionalist understanding of sovereignty are rejected as reductive and, at times, inaccurate.

The article examines the conceptual category of semi-liberal constitutionalism and offers some thoughts on the unique normative challenges that arise in the resolution of human rights conflicts in semi-liberal constitutional systems. Under the definition offered a semi-liberal constitutional system is a system that meets two conditions: first, it exhibits a simultaneous dual normative commitment to liberal rights and principles and to other values or interests that result in enduring and significant restrictions on some of these rights; second, this dual normative commitment is constitutive and is expressed in the basic elements of the system. Describing the problem of shaping and interpreting normative commitments in a semi-liberal constitutional regime, the article argues that an insufficient understanding of semi-liberal normativity may result in skewed reasoning by both courts and policymakers trying to resolve human rights conflicts in semi-liberal constitutional regimes, because the application of liberal rights reasoning in semi-liberal settings neglects the power differentials inherent in such systems and tends to overprotect the rights of some at the expense of the rights of others. Offering Israel as an example of a semi-liberal constitutional system and using one aspect of its semi-liberal nature – the structure of its religion–state relations and specifically of its religious personal laws – the article analyses three decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court, pointing to the special difficulties arising in such settings and offering critiques and corrections to the Court’s rulings where applicable.

The purpose of the present article is threefold. First, my ambition is to improve the analytical framework that is used to assess the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court’s authority can neither be established nor refuted by a single master-argument. Instead, what we need is a careful balancing exercise and this piece aims to set out the main elements of the justificatory equation. Second, using this framework, I intend to put forward the outline of a coherent critique of the European human rights regime. Third, I hope that my article is able to shed light on why it is natural to expect more vocal criticism from the United Kingdom than from most other member states of the Council of Europe.

This article argues that despite the UK Government’s exaltations of self-determination of its Overseas Territories, provisions of colonial governance persist in their constitutions. Further, it posits that such illustrations begin to answer the broader question of whether British Overseas Territories (BOTs) are modern day colonies. Such claims are not without merit given that 10 out of the 14 BOTS are still considered Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Nations and have remained the target of decolonisation efforts. Drawing insights from post-colonial legal theory, this article develops the idea of the persistence of colonial constitutionalism to interrogate whether structural continuities exist in the governance of the UK’s British Overseas Territories. The analysis begins to unravel the fraught tensions between constitutional provisions that advance greater self-determination and constitutional provisions that maintain the persistence of colonial governance. Ultimately, the post-colonial approach foregrounds a thoroughgoing analysis on whether BOTs are colonies and how such an exegesis would require particular nuance that is largely missing in current institutional and non-institutional articulations of, as well as representations on, the issue.