Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article looks at the constitutional label of Romania as a 'national state' and the constitutional discourse surrounding it. It argues that this label is unavoidably linked to a project of constitutional nationalism. The article examines the origins of the provision enshrining this state characteristic, as well as the eternity clause declaring it unamendable, so as to reconstruct the genealogy of the idea of the national state in Romania. The article traces the origins of the concept to early-twentieth century nation-building discourse but links its current incarnation to the distinctive type of nationalism promoted in late communist and early post-communist Romania and its fear of the Hungarian 'other'. This fear seeped into debates in the 1990–1991 constituent assembly debating the new constitution, which proceeded to disregard calls for a more pluralist definition of the state and clearer constitutional protection for national minorities. While some of these choices were revisited during the 2003 revision of the constitution, the fundamental law retains its emphasis on the national state. To this day, Article 1 (1) continues to be contested, especially by representatives of the Hungarian community. At the same time, it is invoked and creates confusion every time administrative territorial reorganisation is entertained. The article argues that greater clarity is required in understanding the concept and operation of the national state provision, as well as openness to an inclusive national dialogue surrounding this constitutional unsettlement. Only by moving the constitutional discourse beyond the highly politicised debates of years past, and the 'us versus them' mentality informing them, can Romanian constitutionalism show a maturity in keeping with its recent 25-year anniversary.

Abstract:This article looks at the continued calls for popular participation in UK constitution-making following the 2014 Scottish independence and 2016 Brexit referendums. In particular, it discusses the prospect of a UK constitutional convention being set up to deliberate upon and make recommendations concerning constitutional reform. The article proceeds by first mapping the arguments in favour of setting up such a body in a country with little but growing experience with direct democracy. It then analyses three difficulties surrounding a UK constitutional convention: deciding on a manageable mandate, identifying the political community or communities it is to represent and the method for selecting its membership, and defining the place of such a convention within the UK's broader constitution-making mechanisms. The article highlights fundamental unknowns in need of clarification before such an instrument could be used while at the same time admitting the limitations of a constitutional convention as a panacea for all of the UK's constitutional woes. In exploring these questions, the article shows how constitutional reform debates in the UK are no less complex than were those surrounding Scottish independence and have been further compounded by Brexit.

Abstract:The literature on entrenchment as a means to achieve constitutional endurance has grown in recent years, as has the scholarship on unamendable provisions as a mechanism intended to safeguard the constitutional project. However, little attention has been paid to the promise and limits of eternity clauses in transitional settings. Their appeal in this context is great. In an effort to safeguard hard-fought agreements, drafters often declare unamendable what they consider the fundamentals to the political deal: the number of presidential term limits, the commitment to human rights and to democracy, the form of the state (whether republican or monarchical), the territorial integrity of the state, the territorial division of power, secularism or the official religion. This article explores the distinctive role and problems posed by eternity clauses in transitional constitution-building, as guarantees of the pre-constitutional political settlement in such fragile periods. The article also compares unamendability to other techniques of constitution-making in uncertain times, such as sunset clauses, deferring hard choices and other forms of constitutional incrementalism.

Mechanisms of constitutional development have recently attracted significant attention, specifically, instances where popular involvement was central to the constitutional change. Examples include attempts by British Columbia, the Netherlands, and Ontario at electoral reform, in addition to the more sweeping reforms sought in Iceland and Ireland. Each of these countries' attempts exemplifies varied innovative avenues to reform involving participatory and partially citizen-led processes aimed at revitalizing politics. The little legal scholarship on these developments has provided an insufficient analytical account of such novel approaches to constitution-making. This Essay seeks to build upon the current descriptive work on constitutional conventions by focusing on the cases of Iceland and Ireland. The Essay further aims to evaluate whether the means undertaken by each country translates into novelty at a more substantive level, namely, the quality of the process and legitimacy of the end product. The Essay proposes standards of direct democratic engagements that adequately fit these new developments and further identifies lessons for participatory constitution-making processes in the digital twenty-first century.