1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 13, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 13, 2017

Comparative Constitutional Studies: Two Fields or One?

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. Although both fields are directed at the same phenomenon—the global spread of constitutionalism and judicial review—their purposes and methods are 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. Although there are opportunities for productive dialogue between the two fields, such dialogue needs to recognize the distinct identity of each.

Keyword(s): comparative constitutional law, comparative judicial politics
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113534
2017-10-13
2025-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/13/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113534.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113534&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albert R. 2015. The theory and doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment in Canada. Queen's Law J 41:143–206 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amaral-Garcia S, Garoupa N, Grembi V. 2009. Judicial independence and party politics in the Kelsenian constitutional courts: the case of Portugal. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 6:381–404 [Google Scholar]
  3. Balkin JM. 1996. Interdisciplinarity as colonization. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 53:949–70 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barak A. 2012. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Beatty DM. 2004. The Ultimate Rule of Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Bilchitz D. 2007. Poverty and Fundamental Rights: The Justification and Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Boix C, Stokes SC. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Bomhoff J. 2013. Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Carruba C, Gabel M, Hankla C. 2008. Judicial behavior under political constraints: evidence from the European Court of Justice. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:435–52 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chavez RB. 2004. The Rule of Law in Nascent Democracies: Judicial Politics in Argentina Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Chavez RB. 2008. The rule of law and courts in democratizing regimes. See Whittington et al. 2008 63–80
  12. Choudhry S. 1999. Globalization in search of justification: toward a theory of comparative constitutional interpretation. Indiana Law J 74:819–92 [Google Scholar]
  13. Choudhry S. 2006. Migration as a new metaphor in comparative constitutional law. The Migration of Constitutional Ideas S Choudhry 1–35 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I. 2010. American balancing and German proportionality: the historical origins. Int. J. Const. Law 8:263–86 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I. 2011. Proportionality and the culture of justification. Am. J. Comp. Law 59:463–90 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I. 2013. Proportionality and Constitutional Culture Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Cotterrell R. 2006. Comparative law and legal culture. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law M Reimann, R Zimmermann 710–36 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Dixon R. 2007. Creating dialogue about socioeconomic rights: strong-form versus weak-form judicial review revisited. Int. J. Const. Law 5:391–418 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dixon R. 2008. A democratic theory of constitutional comparison. Am. J. Comp. Law 56:947–97 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon R. 2016. Toward a realistic comparative constitutional studies. Am. J. Comp. Law 64:193–200 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dixon R, Landau D. 2015. Transnational constitutionalism and a limited doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Int. J. Const. Law 13:606–38 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dorsen N, Rosenfeld M, Sajó A, Baer S. 2003. Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 1st ed.. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dyevre A. 2010. Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: towards a general theory of judicial behaviour. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2:297–327 [Google Scholar]
  24. Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Melton J. 2009. The Endurance of National Constitutions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Epstein L, Knight J. 1998. The Choices Justices Make Washington, DC: Congr. Q. [Google Scholar]
  26. Epstein L, Knight J, Shvetsova O. 2001. The role of constitutional courts in the establishment and maintenance of democratic systems of government. Law Soc. Rev. 35:117–64 [Google Scholar]
  27. Erlanger H, Garth B, Larson J, Mertz E, Nourse V, Wilkins D. 2005. Is it time for a new legal realism. Wis. Law Rev. 2005:335–63 [Google Scholar]
  28. Escresa L, Garoupa NM. 2013. Testing the logic of strategic defection: the case of the Philippine Supreme Court—an empirical analysis (1986–2010). Asian J. Polit. Sci. 21:189–212 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fish S. 1994. There's No Such Thing as Free Speech (and It's a Good Thing Too) Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Galligan B. 1987. The Politics of the High Court Brisbane, Aust.: Univ. Queensl. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Gardbaum S. 2013. The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Gardbaum S. 2017. How do we and should we compare constitutional law?. Comparing Comparative Law S Besson, LH Urscheler, S Jubé 109–26 Zurich: Schulthess Verlag [Google Scholar]
  33. Garoupa N, Gomez-Pomar F, Grembi V. 2013. Judging under political pressure: an empirical analysis of constitutional review voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29:513–34 [Google Scholar]
  34. Garoupa N, Grembi V, Lin SC-P. 2011. Explaining constitutional review in new democracies: the case of Taiwan. Pac. Rim Law Policy J. 20:1–40 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gillman H. 1994. On constructing a science of comparative judicial politics: Tate & Haynie's “Authoritarianism and the Functions of Courts.”. Law Soc. Rev. 28:355–76 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ginsburg T. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Ginsburg T. 2012. Comparative Constitutional Design Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Ginsburg T. 2013. The politics of courts in democratization: four junctures in Asia. Consequential Courts: Judicial Roles in Global Perspective D Kapiszewski, G Silverstein, RA Kagan 45–66 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Ginsburg T, Dixon R. 2011. Comparative Constitutional Law Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  40. Hailbronner M. 2015. Traditions and Transformations: The Rise of German Constitutionalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Halmai G. 2012. Unconstitutional constitutional amendments: constitutional courts as guardians of the constitution?. Constellations 19:182–203 [Google Scholar]
  42. Helmke G. 2012. Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Hilbink L. 2008. From comparative judicial politics to comparative law and politics. Law Polit. Book Rev. 18:121098–102 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hirschl R. 2007. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Hirschl R. 2014. Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Iaryczower M, Spiller PT, Tommasi M. 2002. Judicial decision-making in unstable environments, Argentina 1935–1998. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46:699–716 [Google Scholar]
  47. Issacharoff S. 2015. Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Jackson VC. 2005. Constitutional comparisons: convergence, resistance, engagement. Harvard Law Rev 119:109–28 [Google Scholar]
  49. Jackson VC. 2010. Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Jackson VC. 2015. Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Law J 124:3094–196 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jackson VC. 2016. Comparative constitutional law, legal realism, and empirical legal science. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 96:1359–74 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kapiszewski D. 2011. Tactical balancing: high court decision-making on politically crucial cases. Law Soc. Rev. 45:471–506 [Google Scholar]
  53. King J. 2012. Judging Social Rights Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Knight J, Epstein L. 1996. On the struggle for judicial supremacy. Law Soc. Rev. 30:87–120 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kumm M. 2007. Political liberalism and the structure of rights: on the place and limits of the proportionality requirement. Law, Rights and Discourse: Themes from the Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy G Pavlakos 131–66 Oxford, UK: Hart [Google Scholar]
  56. Kumm M. 2010. The idea of Socratic contestation and the right to justification: the point of rights-based proportionality review. Law Ethics Hum. Rights 4:142–75 [Google Scholar]
  57. Landau D. 2012. The reality of social rights enforcement. Harvard Int. Law J. 53:189–247 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lasser M, de S-O-I'E. 2004. Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Law DS. 2005. Generic constitutional law. Minn. Law Rev. 89:652–742 [Google Scholar]
  60. Law DS, Versteeg M. 2011. The evolution and ideology of global constitutionalism. Calif. Law Rev. 99:1163–258 [Google Scholar]
  61. Law DS, Versteeg M. 2012. The declining influence of the U.S. Constitution. N.Y.U. Law Rev. 87:762–857 [Google Scholar]
  62. Macaulay S, Mertz E. 2013. New legal realism and the empirical turn in law. Law and Social Theory R Bankar, M Travers 195–210 Oxford, UK: Hart, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  63. Maveety N, Grosskopf A. 2004. “Constrained” constitutional courts as conduits for democratic consolidation. Law Soc. Rev. 38:463–88 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mietzner M. 2010. Political conflict resolution and democratic consolidation in Indonesia: the role of the constitutional court. J. East Asian Stud. 10:397–424 [Google Scholar]
  65. Möllers C, Birkenkötter H. 2014. Towards a new conceptualism in comparative constitutional law, or reviving the German tradition of the Lehrbuch. Int. J. Const. Law 12:603–25 [Google Scholar]
  66. Moustafa T. 2014. Law and courts in authoritarian regimes. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:281–99 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nonet P, Selznick P. 2001 (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Towards Responsive Law New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction [Google Scholar]
  68. Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 1997.
  69. Ramseyer M, Rasmusen EB. 2001. Why are Japanese judges so conservative in politically charged cases?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95:331–44 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosenfeld M. 2012. Comparative constitutional analysis in United States adjudication and scholarship. See Rosenfeld & Sajó 2012 38–53
  71. Rosenfeld M, Sajó A. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Roux T. 2014. Judging the quality of legal research: a qualified response to the demand for greater methodological rigour. Leg. Educ. Rev. 24:173–200 [Google Scholar]
  73. Roux T. 2015a. American ideas abroad: comparative implications of US Supreme Court decision-making models. Int. J. Const. Law 13:90–118 [Google Scholar]
  74. Roux T. 2015b. The incorporation problem in interdisciplinary legal research: some conceptual issues and a practical illustration. Erasmus Law Rev 8:55–64 [Google Scholar]
  75. Saunders C. 2006. The use and misuse of comparative constitutional law. Indiana J. Glob. Leg. Stud. 13:37–76 [Google Scholar]
  76. Scheppele KL. 2004. Constitutional ethnography. Law Soc. Rev. 38:389–406 [Google Scholar]
  77. Smith RM. 2008. Historical institutionalism and the study of law. See Whittington et al. 2008 46–59
  78. Staton JK. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Stone A. 2001. Rights, personal rights and freedoms: the nature of the freedom of political communication. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 25:374–417 [Google Scholar]
  80. Suchman MC, Mertz E. 2010. Towards a new legal empiricism: empirical legal studies and new legal realism. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 6:555–79 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sunstein C. 2001. Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  82. Teitel R. 2004. Comparative constitutional law in a global age. Harvard Law Rev 117:2570–96 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tomlins C. 2006. In this issue. Law Soc. Inq. 31:795–96 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tushnet M. 1999. The possibilities of comparative constitutional law. Yale Law J 108:122–59 [Google Scholar]
  85. Tushnet M. 2006. Some reflections on method in comparative constitutional law. The Migration of Constitutional Ideas S Choudhry 67–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Tushnet M. 2007. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  87. Tushnet M. 2014. Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  88. Tushnet M. 2015. Authoritarian constitutionalism. Cornell Law Rev 100:391–461 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tushnet M. 2016. Saying and doing in comparative constitutional studies. Am. J. Comp. Law 64:201–8 [Google Scholar]
  90. Tushnet M, Fleiner T, Saunders C. 2013. Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  91. Vanberg G. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Vanberg G. 2015. Constitutional courts in comparative perspective: a theoretical assessment. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 18:167–85 [Google Scholar]
  93. von Bogdandy A. 2012. Comparative constitutional law: a continental perspective. See Rosenfeld & Sajó 2012 25–37
  94. von Bogdandy A. 2016. Comparative constitutional law as a social science? A Hegelian reaction to Ran Hirschl's Comparative Matters. Der Staat 55:103–15 [Google Scholar]
  95. Waldron J. 2005. Foreign law and the modern iusgentium. Harvard Law Rev. 119:129–47 [Google Scholar]
  96. Whittington KE, Kelemen RD, Caldeira GA. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  97. Woolman S, Bishop M. 2008. Constitutional Law of South Africa Cape Town: Juta, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  98. Young KG. 2012. Constituting Economic and Social Rights Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  99. Young KG. 2016. On what matters in comparative constitutional law: a comment on Hirschl. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 96:1375–92 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113534
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error