Search results

The project of global administrative law has stood out from various efforts to tame global governance with the rule of law. By enhancing transparency and accountability, global administrative law is expected to improve the policy output of global administration, giving legitimacy to global governance. In this way, global administrative law evolves into a small-c global constitutionalism. In this paper, I trace the trajectory of global administrative law as small-c global constitutionalism and how the concept of legitimacy is recast in relation to global governance. I first point out that originally embedded in the practice of global governance, global administrative law effectively functions as the small-c constitutional law of global governance, echoing the trends toward constitutionalization. As it takes on constitutional character, however, global administrative law faces the challenges of legality and legitimacy. Turning away from state consent, global administrative law turns to the idea of publicness as solution to its double challenges. My inspection of the notion of publicness in global administrative law shows that the strategy of resting the legitimacy of global administrative law as small-c global constitutionalism on the idea of publicness turns out to be the privatization of legitimacy, suggesting a post-public concept of legitimacy.

Abstract
As constitutional democracies are faced with authoritarianism and other anti-constitutionalist threats, international law is seeing its own challenge from the increasing influence of authoritarian states. Yet, departing from the recent tendency to model the international legal order after constitutional governance, international lawyers seem to show little interest in the concept of militant democracy, while the latter lies at the centre of current debates surrounding constitutional self-defence. This article aims to bring to light the current limits of constitutional analogy in international law through an investigation into the discrepancy between constitutional and international lawyers in responding to authoritarian co-optation. A three-pronged argument is submitted. First, in contrast to other appeals for constitutional self-defence, the concept of militant democracy is contentious where it stands in tension with the constitutional ethos. Second, while militant democracy as a constitutional concept presupposes a democratic and normative version of constitutional ordering, the absence of militant democracy on the international plane betrays the non-democratic, albeit representative, character of the international legal order. Third, attempts to internationalize the concept of militant democracy should be rejected as an international version of militant democracy would only portend an (un)holy alliance of militant democracies and exacerbate the political division in international society. It is suggested that, from out of a realignment of international law with the constitutional project of progress, a new constitutional analogy may emerge, giving fresh impetus to the realization of international law's universal liberating promise.

This paper aims to rethink the idea of constitutional renewal through a dissection of Richard Albert's ground-breaking concept of constitutional dismemberment. It is contended that under the rubric of constitutional dismemberment are two exceptional constitutional phenomena: the ought-to-be declared nullity of unconstitutional constitutional amendments and the legal unity-defying, extraconstitutional expression of what Hannah Arendt called "natality" in political action. The thesis is that attempts to tame revolutionary constitutional alteration with designed rules as to formal constitutional change as Albert's illustrates are missing the meaning of constitution-making for a natality-driven constitutional renewal characteristically defies designed constitutional form. The concept of constitutional dismemberment is first dissected in light of Arendt's idea of natality. With constitutional dismemberment unpacked, it is further observed that the constitution-making transmutes into the formal pronouncement of a new codified constitution in Albert's rigid tripartite classification of constitutional changes into amendment, dismemberment, and enactment. Albert therefore inadvertently reduces constitution-making to the formal enactment of a new codified constitution with constitutional natality dismembered and constitutional renewal hollowed out. It is concluded that Albert's formalistic conceptual framework of constitutional change reflects the centrality of comparative written constitutions in the place of comparative constitutional phenomena in current comparative constitutional studies.

Abstract This paper aims to rethink the idea of constitutional renewal through a dissection of Richard Albert's ground-breaking concept of constitutional dismemberment. It is contended that under the rubric of constitutional dismemberment are two exceptional constitutional phenomena: the ought-to-be declared nullity of unconstitutional constitutional amendments and the legal unity-defying, extraconstitutional expression of what Hannah Arendt called "natality" in political action. The thesis is that attempts to tame revolutionary constitutional alteration with designed rules as to formal constitutional change as Albert's illustrates are missing the meaning of constitution-making for a natality-driven constitutional renewal characteristically defies designed constitutional form. The concept of constitutional dismemberment is first dissected in light of Arendt's idea of natality. With constitutional dismemberment unpacked, it is further observed that the constitution-making transmutes into the formal pronouncement of a new codified constitution in Albert's rigid tripartite classification of constitutional changes into amendment, dismemberment, and enactment. Albert therefore inadvertently reduces constitution-making to the formal enactment of a new codified constitution with constitutional natality dismembered and constitutional renewal hollowed out. It is concluded that Albert's formalistic conceptual framework of constitutional change reflects the centrality of comparative written constitutions in the place of comparative constitutional phenomena in current comparative constitutional studies.

This paper aims to rethink the idea of constitutional renewal through a dissection of Richard Albert's ground-breaking concept of constitutional dismemberment. It is contended that under the rubric of constitutional dismemberment are two exceptional constitutional phenomena: the ought-to-be declared nullity of unconstitutional constitutional amendments and the legal unity-defying, extraconstitutional expression of what Hannah Arendt called "natality" in political action. The thesis is that attempts to tame revolutionary constitutional alteration with designed rules as to formal constitutional change as Albert's illustrates are missing the meaning of constitution-making for a natality-driven constitutional renewal characteristically defies designed constitutional form. The concept of constitutional dismemberment is first dissected in light of Arendt's idea of natality. With constitutional dismemberment unpacked, it is further observed that the constitution-making transmutes into the formal pronouncement of a new codified constitution in Albert's rigid tripartite classification of constitutional changes into amendment, dismemberment, and enactment. Albert therefore inadvertently reduces constitution-making to the formal enactment of a new codified constitution with constitutional natality dismembered and constitutional renewal hollowed out. It is concluded that Albert's formalistic conceptual framework of constitutional change reflects the centrality of comparative written constitutions in the place of comparative constitutional phenomena in current comparative constitutional studies.