!

"#$%&'(

*+' !,,'-& ./ #+' 0".1'%# ./ 2&.3-& 4.5(#$#6#$.5-&$(7 #. 063&$%
85#'"5-#$.5-& 9-:;'"(

8y cbtlstloe 5cbwobel
*



!< 85#".=6%#$.5

Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm, an ldea nelLher necessarlly rooLed ln nor emerglng speclflcally
from lnLernaLlonal law, has capLured Lhe lmaglnaLlon of publlc lnLernaLlonal lawyers.
8aLher Lhan addlng Lo Lhe pleLhora of suggesLlons of whaL a global consLlLuLlon would and
should look llke, Lhls arLlcle ls abouL wby lnLernaLlonal lawyers are lnLeresLed ln Lhls ldea.
1he llLeraLure so far has largely omlLLed a sLockLaklng of whaL lL ls LhaL ls so appeallng
abouL consLlLuLlonallsm and who ls parLlcularly parLlal Lo lL.
1
When dlscusslng global
consLlLuLlonallsm, lnLernaLlonal lawyers commonly assume one of Lwo orlenLaLlons: elLher
a normaLlve orlenLaLlon (Lhls ls Lhe Lype of consLlLuLlonallsm we should have) or a
descrlpLlve orlenLaLlon (Lhls ls Lhe Lype of consLlLuLlonallsm we already have). 1he former
mosLly concerns vlslons for a global consLlLuLlon" whlle Lhe laLLer ofLen concerns ldeas of
Lhe process LhaL wlll aL some polnL culmlnaLe ln a global consLlLuLlon," Lhls process ls
commonly referred Lo as consLlLuLlonallzaLlon." 1he recenL co-auLhored book by !an
klabbers, Anne eLers and Celr ulfsLeln, 1be coostltotlooollzotloo of lotetootloool low,
seLs ouL Lo go furLher. lL alms Lo see whaL a consLlLuLlonal lnLernaLlonal legal order could
look llke."
2
ln a sense, Lhey have Lherefore adopLed a Lhlrd orlenLaLlon: one LhaL Lakes Lhe
descrlpLlve case of consLlLuLlonallsm as a glven and Lheorlzes abouL furLher normaLlve
aspecLs ln regard Lo Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal order.


*
l would llke Lo Lhank !ason 8eckeLL for hls valuable commenLs on an earller verslon of Lhls work. My Lhanks also
go Lo Lhe parLlclpanLs of Lhe Luropean SLandlng Croup on lnLernaLlonal 8elaLlons ln SLockholm, where l presenLed
Lhe flrsL drafL of Lhe paper ln SepLember 2010, and aL whlch SLefan CeLer's commenLs were parLlcularly helpful.
llnally l would llke Lo Lhank Lhe anonymous revlewer and Lhe edlLors of Lhe CL! for Lhelr commenLs. Lmall:
C.Schwobel[llverpool.ac.uk.
1
lnLeresLlngly, Lhe - Lo my mlnd - besL analyses of Lhe appeal of global consLlLuLlonallsm have been ln Lhe conLexL
of Lhe consLlLuLlonallzaLlon of speclflc areas of publlc lnLernaLlonal law, raLher Lhan of Lhe fleld as a whole. 5ee
!effrey L. uunoff, coostltotloool coocelts. 1be w1Os coostltotloo ooJ tbe ulsclplloe of lotetootloool low, 17
Lu8CLAn !Cu8nAL Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW (L!lL) 647-673 (2006), uanlel 8odansky, ls tbete oo lotetootloool
ovltoomeotol coostltotloo?, (2009) 16 lnulAnA !Cu8nAL Cl CLC8AL LLCAL S1uulLS 374-384, uL8C8AP CASS, 1PL
CCnS1l1u1lCnALlZA1lCn lC 1PL WC8Lu 18AuL C8CAnlZA1lCn (2003).
2
!An kLA88L8S, AnnL L1L8S, CLl8 uLlS1Lln, 1PL CCnS1l1u1lCnALlZA1lCn Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 4 (2009).
[vol. 13 no. 01 2 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
l would llke Lo Lake a sLep back from Lhe ldea of a consLlLuLlon" as a producL, or of
consLlLuLlonallzaLlon" as a process, and shlfL Lhe vlew Lowards Lhe lnLernaLlonal lawyer
her (or hlm) self. WhaL ls Lhe agenda of lnLernaLlonal lawyers when Lhey speak of
consLlLuLlonallzaLlon? Why ls lL LhaL consLlLuLlonallsm ls such an appeallng prospecL for
Lhem? And how compulslve ls Lhe pull Lo consLlLuLlonallsm? ln Lhe followlng, l begln wlLh a
brlef overvlew of Lhe conLemporary debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm. l Lhen conslder
Lhree moLlvaLlons of lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lo engage wlLh Lhe debaLe and flnally l Lake a
closer look aL Lhe apparenL appeal." ln Lhls conLexL l examlne wheLher Lhe debaLe on
global consLlLuLlonallsm ls merely appeallng or wheLher Lhere ls someLhlng more
compulslve Lo lL.

no speclflc vlslon for a global consLlLuLlon" wlll be suggesLed here. lndeed, lL ls Lhe
lnherenL llmlLaLlon of devlslng or recognlzlng a global consLlLuLlon" whlch drlve my
Lheorlzlng abouL Lhe appeal of global consLlLuLlonallsm ln Lhe flrsL place. Whlle Lhe
lnherenL llmlLaLlons and blases are noL Lhe focus of Lhls arLlcle, lL ls worLh noLlng where l
sLand ln Lerms of Lhe debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm. WhaL l am ulLlmaLely lnLeresLed
ln ls wheLher Lhe conLemporary and prevalllng vlslons of global consLlLuLlonallsm elLher acL
as a screen for Lhe excluslon of Lhe more vulnerable ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal sphere or
wheLher such vlslons may even encourage Lhe excluslon of Lhe more vulnerable. When
speaklng of Lhe vulnerable ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal sphere, l refer Lo any enLlLy, from
whole sLaLes Lo lndlvlduals, LhaL may be dlsadvanLaged Lhrough Lhe economlc, pollLlcal and
culLural domlnaLlon of Lhe few, hegemonlc, powers ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere.

1he concern abouL hegemony ln lnLernaLlonal law ls one LhaL ls famlllar. 1he argumenL
goes LhaL some powerful sLaLes, parLlcularly Lhe unlLed SLaLes (uS), elLher dlsregard
lnLernaLlonal law or use Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal rheLorlc for Lhelr own pollLlcal
convenlence.
3
?eL, ln my oplnlon Lhls ls noL Lhe end of Lhe road for lnLernaLlonal law, aL Lhe
same Llme as belng marked by hegemonlc power sLruggles, lnLernaLlonal law also
possesses an emanclpaLory power. lnLernaLlonal law offers a space - a plaLform - for
conslderlng [usLlce, equal parLlclpaLlon, and lncluslon of Lhe weaker members of socleLy.
4

lnLernaLlonal law lncorporaLes Lhe poLenLlal for soluLlons as well as problems. lL ls Lhus
consldered posslble Lo reverse, lf noL escape, Lhe blas lnherenL ln concepLs of lnLernaLlonal
law. My vlew on global consLlLuLlonallsm ls very much ln accordance wlLh Lhls llne of
argumenL. lL appears LhaL Lhe currenL debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm ls LalnLed wlLh
blases and llmlLaLlons, whlch, l belleve, derlve from lnvesLmenL ln llberal-democraLlc
pollLlcal pracLlce as Lhe seemlngly only avallable pollLlcal pracLlce wlLh unlversal appeal.
?eL, Lhese llmlLaLlons can be addressed wlLhln Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal debaLe. 1he language
of consLlLuLlonallsm enshrlnes a hegemonlc poLenLlal buL also an alLernaLlve aspecL of

3
5ee for example, unl1Lu S1A1LS PLCLMCn? Anu 1PL lCunuA1lCnS Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW (Mlchael 8yers & Ceorg nolLe
eds., 2003).
4
5ee MarLLl koskennleml, wbot ls lotetootloool low lot? lo ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 32 (Malcolm u. Lvans ed., 2010).
2012] 3 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
maklng vlslble and glvlng volce Lo Lhose who would noL be heard lf lL were excluslvely for
power pollLlcs. ln hls book 5ttooqe Moltlpllclty, !ames 1ully argues LhaL Lhe consLlLuLlonal
language also accommodaLes anLl-lmperlal underLaklngs Lhrough lLs flexlblllLy.
3
1he
problem ls LhaL lL ls noL Lhls flexlble aspecL of Lhe consLlLuLlonal language LhaL ls adopLed, lL
ls raLher Lhe lnflexlble aspecL LhaL can cause sLasls and manlfesLaLlons of lnequallLles.

A reconcepLuallzaLlon of consLlLuLlonallsm Lowards a more flexlble undersLandlng ls only
posslble lf Lhe conLemporary debaLe ls revealed as only belng one opLlon of many, and as
Lhe speclflc opLlon LhaL ls assoclaLed wlLh llberal-democraLlc consLlLuLlonallsm as ls
prevalenL ln Lhe domesLlc legal sysLems of Lhe lnLernaLlonal lawyers shaplng Lhe debaLe. ln
order Lo recognlze global consLlLuLlonallsm as havlng represslve as well as emanclpaLory
properLles, lL musL be recognlzed as a form of argumenL LhaL ls parL and parcel of pollLlcal
conslderaLlons.
6
lL ls noL a body of lndependenL absLracL and ob[ecLlve rules LhaL are ln a
Lug-of-war wlLh pollLlcs. lf, Lhen, global consLlLuLlonallsm ls a form of argumenL, lL ls
necessary Lo place Lhe spoLllghL on Lhe arguer. Cnly by dlrecLlng our vlew Lo Lhe arguer and
hls or her moLlvaLlons can we flnd ouL whaL Lhelr argumenL really means.

8uL, one mlghL ask why Lake lssue wlLh Lhese lnLernaLlonal legal Lheorles and Lhe LheorlsLs
promoLlng Lhem? Why noL leL Lhe academlcs whlle ln Lhelr lvory Lowers and dellberaLe
abouL a unlversal framework for Lhe world? lndeed, declarlng Lhe exlsLence of a global
consLlLuLlon" may sLrlke one as belng noLhlng buL a harmless fanLasy. ?eL, conLrlbuLors Lo
Lhe debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm never belleve LhaL Lhe ldea lLself ls sufflclenL. lor
Lhem, Lhe ldea ls lnherenLly llnked Lo a pracLlcable pro[ecL.
7
ldeas on global
consLlLuLlonallsm Lherefore always also conslder Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe ldea of global
consLlLuLlonallsm. lL ls Lhls deLermlnaLlon of lnLernaLlonal lawyers LhaL makes lL necessary
Lo quesLlon Lhelr moLlvaLlon.


>< ! >"$'/ ?@'"@$': .@'" #+' A'3-#' ./ 2&.3-& 4.5(#$#6#$.5-&$(7

Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm" ls by no means a Lerm excluslve Lo publlc lnLernaLlonal law.
Scholars of varlous sub[ecLs and varlous Llmes have LhoughL abouL lL, lncludlng Lhose of
anLhropology, hlsLory, lnLernaLlonal relaLlons, phllosophy, pollLlcal Lheory, soclology, and
Lheology. lndeed, much of Lhe Lermlnology employed by lnLernaLlonal lawyers ls borrowed
from oLher dlsclpllnes and exLrapolaLed Lo lnLernaLlonal law. Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm has

3
!AMLS 1uLL?, S18AnCL MuLl1lLlCl1?: CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM ln An ACL Cl ulvL8Sl1? 31 (1993).
6
MA811l kCSkLnnlLMl, l8CM ACLCC? 1C u1ClA (2003).
7
Anne eLers sLaLes global consLlLuLlonallsm ls an agenda" ln 1be Metlts of Clobol coostltotlooollsm, 16 lnulAnA
!Cu8nAL Cl CLC8AL LLCAL S1uulLS 397 (2009). ln Lerms of lnLernaLlonal lawyers and Lhelr pro[ecLs, see uavld
kennedy, 1be ulsclplloes of lotetootloool low ooJ lollcy, 12 LLluLn !Cu8nAL Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW (L!lL) 9, 18 (1999).
[vol. 13 no. 01 4 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
recenLly emerged as one of Lhe mosL dlscussed areas ln Lhe fleld. Accordlng Lo klabbers,
consLlLuLlonallzaLlon forms, alongslde fragmenLaLlon and verLlcallzaLlon, Lhe holy LrlnlLy of
lnLernaLlonal legal debaLe ln Lhe early 21
sL
cenLury."
8


So how do lnLernaLlonal lawyers relaLe Lo global consLlLuLlonallsm? 1he conLemporary
debaLe ls predomlnanLly formed Lhrough Lwo perspecLlves: suggesLlons as Lo whlch seL of
norms and prlnclples such a consLlLuLlon could and should be composed of and whlch
process supposedly amounLs Lo consLlLuLlonallzaLlon. As lL ls noL Lhe maln purpose of Lhls
paper Lo conLrlbuLe Lo Lhls parLlcular debaLe, Lhe mapplng of Lhe varlous conLrlbuLlons wlll
remaln brlef. lL should also be sald LhaL lL seems approprlaLe noL Lo deflne global
consLlLuLlonallsm. ln deflnlng global consLlLuLlonallsm, Lhe opporLunlLy would be losL Lo
aLLempL Lo vlew Lhe debaLe from Lhe ouLslde, from an observer's vlewpolnL. 1he followlng
conLrlbuLlons and conLrlbuLors have Lherefore been selecLed because Lhey lnvoke global
consLlLuLlonallsm, noL because Lhelr proposals flL lnLo a predeflned seL of requlremenLs for
global consLlLuLlonallsm."

Slnce lL ls comprlsed of a large number of mulLl-faceLed vlslons, global consLlLuLlonallsm ls
a dlverse and complex area. 1he conLrlbuLlons Lo Lhe debaLe noneLheless share cerLaln
feaLures, whlch allows for broad (and perhaps sweeplng) caLegorlzaLlons. Cne way of
orderlng Lhe debaLe ls Lo undersLand currenL vlslons of global consLlLuLlonallsm as falllng
lnLo one of four dlmenslons. l call Lhese dlmenslons: Soclal ConsLlLuLlonallsm, lnsLlLuLlonal
ConsLlLuLlonallsm, normaLlve ConsLlLuLlonallsm, and Analoglcal ConsLlLuLlonallsm.
9

AlLhough lL ls noL posslble Lo capLure Lhe enLlre debaLe by way of Lhls caLegorlzaLlon, Lhe
four suggesLed dlmenslons are ln my vlew represenLaLlve of Lhe predomlnanL vlslons of
global consLlLuLlonallsm Loday. roponenLs of 5oclol coostltotlooollsm cenLre concerns for
coexlsLence ln lnLernaLlonal socleLy. An example of Lhls vlslon ls LhaL of a global
consLlLuLlonallsm of clvll socleLy. CunLer 1eubner, for example, dlsassoclaLes
consLlLuLlonallsm enLlrely from Lhe naLlon sLaLe: ln hls vlew, Lhe consLlLuLlon of world
socleLy emerges lncremenLally" Lhrough a process of Lhe consLlLuLlonallzaLlon of
auLonomous sub-sysLems of Lhls socleLy.
10
1he emphasls of Lhls vlslon ls on parLlclpaLlon of
lndlvlduals ln socleLy.
11


8
kLA88L8S, L1L8S, uLlS1Lln (sopto noLe 2).
9
ChrlsLlne L. !. Schwbel, CLC8AL CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM ln ln1L8nA1lCnAL LLCAL L8SLC1lvL (2011).
10
CunLher 1eubner, 5ocletol coostltotlooollsm. Altetootlves to 5tote-ceotteJ coostltotloool 1beoty? lo
18AnSnA1lCnAL CCvL8nAnCL Anu CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM 8 (ChrlsLlan !oerges, lnger-!ohanne Sand & CunLher 1eubner
eds., 2004). CLher proponenLs of a form of Soclal ConsLlLuLlonallsm lnclude ChrlsLlan 1omuschaL, lotetootloool
low. osotloq tbe 5otvlvol of MookloJ oo tbe ve of o New ceototy, CLnL8AL CCu8SL Cn u8LlC ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW
281 8LCuLlL uLS CCu8S uL L'ACAuLMlL uL u8Cl1 ln1L8nA1lCnAL 237(1999), Andreas llscher-Lescano, ule metqeoz Jet
Clobolvetfossooq (1be metqeoce of tbe Clobol coostltotloo), 63 ZLl1SCP8ll1 lu8 AuSLnulSCPLS CllLn1LlCPLS 8LCP1
unu vCLkL88LCP1 (ZAC8v) 717, 739 (2003), PlLl ALLC11, LunCMlA: nLW C8uL8 lC8 A nLW WC8Lu (1990).
11
CunLher 1eubner, Clobole 2lvllvetfossooqeo. Altetootlveo zot stootszeottletteo vetfossooqstbeotle (Clobol clvll
coostltotloos. Altetootlves to o 5tote-ceotteJ coostltotloool 1beoty), 63 ZAC8v 3, 6 (2003).
2012] 3 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers

lostltotloool coostltotlooollsm looks Lo where power ls slLuaLed ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere
and seeks Lo leglLlmlze Lhls power Lhrough lLs lnsLlLuLlonallzaLlon. 1he mosL common vlslon
of Lhls dlmenslon ls LhaL whlch descrlbes Lhe unlLed naLlons CharLer as Lhe global
consLlLuLlon. 8ardo lassbender ls among Lhe mosL asserLlve proponenLs of Lhls vlew, as
evldenced by Lhe LlLle of hls arLlcle from 1998 1he unlLed naLlons CharLer As ConsLlLuLlon
of Lhe lnLernaLlonal CommunlLy."
12


1he nexL group of auLhors of lnLernaLlonal law speclfy lndlvldual norms as global
consLlLuLlonal norms, whlch Lhey belleve provlde Lhe framework for a global consLlLuLlonal
order. Such vlslons are descrlbed here as Notmotlve coostltotlooollsm. WhaL makes Lhese
speclflc norms 'consLlLuLlonal' ls supposedly Lhelr lnherenL moral value. AuLhors group
Lhese norms by referrlng Lo world law," fundamenLal norms" or jos coqeos norms."
13


llnally, vlslons suggesLlng analogles beLween domesLlc or reglonal consLlLuLlonallsm and
Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere can be descrlbed as vlslons of Aooloqlcol coostltotlooollsm.
MaLLhlas kumm, for example, examlned Lo whaL exLenL lnLernaLlonal law can be awarded
leglLlmacy from a consLlLuLlonal perspecLlve by maklng analogles beLween lnLernaLlonal
law and Luropean unlon (Lu) law. Pe suggesLs a consLlLuLlonallsL framework for
lnLernaLlonal law LhaL draws on ldeas of Lu law.
14


lL ls worLh menLlonlng here LhaL Lhe above caLegorlzaLlons cannoL be separaLed neaLly buL
necessarlly overlap, as perLlnenLly demonsLraLed wlLh Analoglcal ConsLlLuLlonallsm. ln a
way, all conLrlbuLors Lo Lhe debaLe compare cerLaln esLabllshed consLlLuLlonal ldeas Lo
occurrences ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere and Lhus pro[ecL concepLs famlllar Lo Lhem from
naLlonal law Lo lnLernaLlonal law. Cne can devlse cerLaln LerrlLorlal clusLers" of Lhls Lype
of research. Cerman lnLernaLlonal lawyers, for varled hlsLorlcal, educaLlonal, and

12
5ee 8ardo lassbender, 1be uolteJ Notloos cbottet As coostltotloo of tbe lotetootloool commoolty, 36 CCLuM8lA
!Cu8nAL Cl 18AnSnA1lCnAL LAW 329, 346 (1998). CLher auLhors of lnsLlLuLlonal ConsLlLuLlonallsm lnclude Anne
eLers, Clobol coostltotlooollsm lo o Notsbell lo Llber amlcorum !osL uelbruck, 348 WLL1lnnLn8LCP1 (2003), 8onald
SL. !ohn Macdonald, 1be lotetootloool commoolty os o leqol commoolty lo 1CWA8uS WC8Lu CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM -
lSSuLS ln 1PL LLCAL C8uL8lnC 1PL WC8Lu CCMMunl1? 879 (8onald SL. !ohn Macdonald & uouglas M. !ohnsLon eds.,
2003), LrnsL-ulrlch eLersmann, 1be w1O coostltotloo ooJ nomoo klqbts, 3 !Cu8nAL Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LCCnCMlC
LAW 19, 20 (2000).
13
5ee for example Lrlka de WeL, 1be metqeoce of lotetootloool ooJ keqloool voloe 5ystems os o Moolfestotloo
of tbe metqloq lotetootloool coostltotloool OtJet, 19 L!lL 611-632 (2006). CLher auLhors LhaL could be
caLegorlzed here lnclude AnCLLlkA LMML8lCP-l8l1SCPL, vCM vCLkL88LCP1 ZuM WLL18LCP1 (l8CM ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 1C
WC8Lu LAW) (2007), Mlchael 8yers, 'cooceptoollsloq tbe kelotloosblp betweeo Ios coqeos ooJ tqo Omoes koles,
66 nC8ulC !Cu8nAL Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 220 (2007).
14
MaLLhlas kumm, 1be leqltlmocy of lotetootloool low. A coostltotlooollst ltomewotk of Aoolysls 13 L!lL 907
(2004). 8oberL uerpmann opLs for Lhe analoglcal approach by comparlsons beLween lnLernaLlonal law and Lhe
Cerman consLlLuLlonal order ln lotetootloooles vetfossooqstecbt (lotetootloool coostltotloool low) 36 !u8lS1Ln
ZLl1unC 363-372 (2001).
[vol. 13 no. 01 6 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
lnsLlLuLlonal reasons, are parLlcularly Laken wlLh Lhe ldea of a global consLlLuLlon. 8uL noL
only Cerman, or for LhaL maLLer Luropean, scholars are lnLeresLed ln Laklng parL ln Lhe
debaLe - lnLernaLlonal lawyers from across Lhe globe (Lhough predomlnanLly from Lhe
WesLern" world) have conLrlbuLed Lo Lhe fleld. LvldenLly Lhere ls someLhlng abouL global
consLlLuLlonallsm LhaL makes lL aLLracLlve Lo lnLernaLlonal law scholars.


4< *+' !,,'-& ./ #+' 0".1'%# ./ 2&.3-& 4.5(#$#6#$.5-&$(7

ln Lhe followlng, Lhree moLlvaLlons have been selecLed as represenLlng whaL lL ls abouL
global consLlLuLlonallsm LhaL carrles such a sLrong appeal Lo lnLernaLlonal lawyers. 1he
Lhree moLlvaLlons are closely relaLed and lnLerdependenL: Lhe flrsL moLlvaLlon - Lhe
allocaLlon of pollLlcal power - carrles wlLhln lL a cenLral aLLrlbuLe of regulaLlon (Lhe second
moLlvaLlon), whlch lLself can only be enforceable lf Lhe leglLlmacy of lnLernaLlonal law (Lhe
Lhlrd moLlvaLlon) ls ensured. 1he dlsLlncLlons hlghllghL faceLs of consLlLuLlonallsm, whlch
deserve Lo be menLloned separaLely.


l. 1be Allocotloo of lowet lo tbe lotetootloool 5pbete

1he flrsL moLlvaLlon LhaL may elucldaLe Lhe appeal of global consLlLuLlonallsm for
lnLernaLlonal lawyers concerns Lhe appeal of Lhe resLrlcLlon of pollLlcal power ln Lhe
lnLernaLlonal sphere. 1he allocaLlon of power, whlch lncludes Lhe aspecL of consLlLuLlng"
as well as Lhe aspecL of resLrlcLlng," ls an ongolng concern of lnLernaLlonal lawyers. Cne
could say lL ls a lawyer's bread and buLLer" Lo allocaLe pollLlcal power: we belleve LhaL we
requlre lawyers Lo ensure, for example, LhaL Lhere ls an ob[ecLlve sLandard under whlch
declslon-makers exerclse dlscreLlon. Lawyers LesL Lhe dlscreLlon and Lhen lnvoke Lhe need
for accounLablllLy for any acLlons LhaL are an abuse of LhaL dlscreLlon. 1he resLrlcLlon of
pollLlcal power ln Lhe global sphere has become more urgenL slnce Lhe exerclse of power
(Lo be undersLood here as Lhe pollLlcal process of declslon-maklng) has become more
dlfflculL Lo Lrace and LherewlLh more dlfflculL Lo grasp. 1hls eluslve exerclse of power has
occurred Lhrough Lhe ublqulLous processes of globallzaLlon. CloballzaLlon processes are
undersLood as, lotet ollo, Lhe lncreaslng number of neLworks LhaL Lranscend sLaLe borders,
wheLher economlc, pollLlcal, soclal, or legal,
13
Lhe lncreaslng number of norms, lnsLlLuLlons,
and procedures ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere,
16
Lhe changlng relaLlons ln Lhe world posL
World War ll whlch have reshaped from sysLems of coexlsLence Lo sysLems of

13
5ee e.q. uAvlu PLLu, uLMCC8AC? Anu 1PL CLC8AL C8uL8: l8CM 1PL MCuL8n S1A1L 1C CCSMCCLl1An CCvL8nAnCL 267
(1993), AnnL-MA8lL SLAuCP1L8, A nLW WC8Lu C8uL8 (2004).
16
8ernhard Zangl & Mlchael Zurn, Moke low Not wot. lotetootlooole ooJ 1toosootlooole vettecbtllcbooq ols
8oostelo fot Clobol Covetoooce, lo vL88LCP1LlCPunC - 8AuS1Lln lu8 CLC8AL CCvL8nAnCL? 12 (8ernhard Zangl &
Mlchael Zurn eds., 2004).
2012] 7 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
cooperaLlon,
17
and Lhe shlfL of publlc declslon-maklng away from Lhe naLlon SLaLe Lowards
lnLernaLlonal acLors.
18
lnLernaLlonal lawyers LranslaLe Lhe facLual evoluLlon of globallzaLlon
lnLo legal Lermlnology: lL ls ofLen clalmed LhaL a shlfL has occurred from a soverelgnLy-
cenLered sysLem Lowards a value-orlenLed or lndlvldual-orlenLed sysLem.
19
A furLher
narraLlve ls LhaL a shlfL has occurred from lnLernaLlonal law as a quasl-conLracLual sysLem,
ln whlch soverelgnLy (ln lLs exLernal dlmenslon) was Lhe paradlgm, Lo a Lrue legal order of
a supra-SLaLe klnd."
20


ConcurrenL wlLh Lhe debaLe on Lhe coherence of Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal order (allegedly
occurrlng Lhrough globallzaLlon processes), a debaLe ls ongolng wlLhln Lhe professlon
regardlng Lhe fragmenLaLlon of Lhls very order (allegedly also occurrlng Lhrough
globallzaLlon processes). lL ls wldely argued LhaL Lhe fleld of lnLernaLlonal law has become
fragmenLed lnLo a collecLlon of speclallzed and lndependenL areas of law.
21
uue Lo Lhe
dlverglng prlnclples of law, deflnlLlons of norms, and lnsLlLuLlonal procedures, lL ls
malnLalned LhaL Lhere ls no longer a coherenL and overarchlng lnLernaLlonal law.
22
ln 2002,
Lhe lnLernaLlonal Law Commlsslon found LhaL fragmenLaLlon has resulLed ln confllcLs
beLween rules or rule-sysLems, devlaLlng lnsLlLuLlonal pracLlces and, posslbly, Lhe loss of an
overall perspecLlve on Lhe law.
23
ln Lhe early days of Lhe debaLe, much of Lhe engagemenL
wlLh fragmenLaLlon came parLlcularly from lnsLlLuLlons such as Lhe lnLernaLlonal CourL of
!usLlce - lnsLlLuLlons LhaL may have been concerned abouL Lhe weakenlng of Lhelr
lnfluence.
24


lL appears LhaL global consLlLuLlonal parlance appeals Lo Lhose lnLernaLlonal lawyers who
wlsh Lo emphaslze LhaL a common framework (ln Lhe form of overarchlng, unlversal
concepLs) ls requlred and LhaL Lhey have ownershlp over Lhls framework ln lLs enLlreLy.
Such ownershlp - wheLher lL be over Lhe speclallzed Lermlnology used, aL Lhe excluslon of
non-experLs, or Lhe experLlse for seLLlng up lnsLlLuLlonal frameworks ln general - would

17
L1L8S, sopto noLe 12, aL 336.
18
uL WL1, sopto noLe 13, aL 612.
19
1CMuSCPA1, sopto noLe 10.
20
Lulgl lerra[oll, 8eyooJ 5ovetelqoty ooJ cltlzeosblp. A Clobol coostltotlooollsm, lo CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM, uLMCC8AC?
Anu SCvL8LlCn1?: AML8lCAn Anu Lu8CLAn L8SLC1lvLS 134 (8lchard 8ellamy ed.,1997).
21
SLAuCP1L8, sopto noLe 13.
22
uavld kennedy refers Lo a porous boundary" ln 1be lotqotteo lolltlcs of lotetootloool Covetoooce, 6 Lu8CLAn
PuMAn 8lCP1S LAW 8LvlLW 117, 120 (2001).
23
8eporL of Lhe SLudy Croup of Lhe lLC, 38
Lh
sesslon (2006) A/Cn.4/L.682 [8].
24
MarLLl koskennleml & alvl Lelno, ltoqmeototloo of lotetootloool low? lostmoJeto Aoxletles, 13 L!lL 333-379
(2002).
[vol. 13 no. 01 8 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
relay onLo lnLernaLlonal lawyers an excluslve conLrol. lL seems Lhen LhaL Lhe need for
conLrolllng fragmenLaLlon ls prompLed by a fear LhaL such dlsperslng and eluslve processes
wlll make lL more dlfflculL or even lmposslble for lawyers Lo llmlL and conLrol pollLlcal
power. Anne-CharloLLe MarLlneau conLexLuallzed and hlsLorlclzed Lhe fear regardlng
fragmenLaLlon, hlghllghLlng LhaL such speclallzed mechanlsms wlll aL cerLaln Llmes be seen
as healLhy plurallsm and aL oLher Llmes as perllous dlvlslon.
23
lear of fragmenLaLlon
domlnaLes Lhe fleld ln Llmes of anxleLy whlle Lhe vlew of healLhy plurallsm domlnaLes lL ln
Llmes of confldence.
26
Ceneral publlc lnLernaLlonal lawyers are Lhe lawyers who are
anxlous - lL ls Lhey who lose lnfluence Lo speclallsLs ln a fragmenLed world. ln parLlcular
Lhose lnLernaLlonal lawyers who have commlLLed Lhemselves Lo a llberal or neo-llberal
ouLlook on Lhe fleld and have Lhus llmlLed Lhemselves Lo dlscusslng unlversallLy from a
Luro- or uS-cenLrlc perspecLlve have reason Lo be anxlous.

1he mulLlple sources of power, some naLlonal, some lnLernaLlonal, some LransnaLlonal,
have lnsplred dlscusslons, predomlnanLly by scholars of lnLernaLlonal relaLlons, on global
governance and Lhe dlsaggregaLed SLaLe."
27
lnLernaLlonal lawyers ln Lurn are somewhaL
skepLlcal of global governance and decenLrallzed power. 1hey prefer Lo see power
cenLrallzed, alLhough of course predomlnanLly noL ln Lhe form of an lnLernaLlonal federal
sysLem. lf lnLernaLlonal lawyers conslder global governance, Lhen lL ls usually ln Lerms of
framlng lL wlLhln well-known cenLrallzed sLrucLures of accounLablllLy and more generally
publlc law.
28
WlLh varlaLlons as Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhelr efforLs, lnLernaLlonal lawyers ln
lnLernaLlonal lnsLlLuLlons have aLLempLed Lo cenLrallze Lhelr areas of experLlse wlLhln Lhelr
respecLlve lnsLlLuLlons. lL appears LhaL Lhls ls underLaken noL only Lo channel experLlse buL
also Lo argue for Lhe ascendancy of Lhelr lnsLlLuLlon as Lhe (slngle) lnsLlLuLlon wlLh unlversal
appeal. 1helr efforLs are compeLlng wlLh Lhe efforLs of oLher lnLernaLlonal lawyers and so,
somewhaL paradoxlcally, Lhey are addlng Lo Lhe decenLrallzaLlon.

ConsLlLuLlonallsm does noL only serve Lhe funcLlon of consLralnlng power, lL also
consLlLuLes" power accordlng Lo Lhe wlll of Lhose who crafL Lhe consLlLuLlon ln Lhe flrsL
place.
29
1hls ls sLaLlng Lhe obvlous, buL lL ls a polnL LhaL ls someLlmes swepL under Lhe
carpeL: when esLabllshlng an lnLernaLlonal organlzaLlon, for example, power of Lhe
member sLaLes ls noL only resLrlcLed, lL ls also consLlLuLed wlLhln Lhe organlzaLlon.
Lxamples of locallzaLlon as a reacLlon Lo globallzaLlon can be found ln varlous lnsLlLuLlons:

23
Anne-CharloLLe MarLlneau, 1be kbetotlc of ltoqmeototloo. leot ooJ loltb lo lotetootloool low, 22 L!lL 2 (2009).
26
lJ. aL 3.
27
SLAuCP1L8, sopto noLe 13, flrsL lnLroduced Lhe Lerm of Lhe dlsaggregaLed sLaLe."
28
lor an analysls of Lhe publlc naLure of global governance, see Armln von 8ogdandy, ueveloploq tbe lobllcoess of
lobllc lotetootloool low. 1owotJs o leqol ltomewotk fot Clobol Covetoooce Actlvltles, 9 CL8MAn LAW !Cu8nAL
1373 (2009).
29
8CuAnSk?, sopto noLe 1.
2012] 9 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
Lhe unlLed naLlons has, ln lLs CharLer, aLLempLed Lo cenLrallze legal maLLers regardlng Lhe
use of force, Lhe World 1rade CrganlzaLlon has aLLempLed Lo cenLrallze lssues regardlng
lnLernaLlonal Lrade, Lhe lnLernaLlonal Crlmlnal CourL's pro[ecL ls Lo cenLrallze lnLernaLlonal
crlmlnal law maLLers,
30
and Lhe lnLernaLlonal Labour CrganlzaLlon ls, albelL wlLh a
commlLmenL Lo locallzaLlon, aLLempLlng Lo cenLrallze labor sLandards. 1hese lnLernaLlonal-
norm-hubs are also power hubs. 1he resLrlcLlon of pollLlcal power Lhrough law ls noL
merely a responslve Lool. lnLernaLlonal lnsLlLuLlon wlll also be granLed wlLh law-mokloq
powers LhaL exLend Lo lLs member SLaLes and someLlmes beyond. Cnce Lhe power has
been allocaLed Lhrough law, Lhe exerclse of LhaL power ls largely wlLhln Lhe dlscreLlon of
LhaL speclflc lnsLlLuLlon. A prlme example ls Lhe un SecurlLy Councll, Lhls un organ has
declared lLself as havlng leglslaLlve powers (see Lhe resoluLlons regardlng Lhe fundlng of
Lerrorlsm), execuLlve powers (Lake for example Lhe power Lo lmpose and oversee Lhe
lmplemenLaLlon of sancLlons), and lnsLlLuLlon-bulldlng powers (see Lhe crlmlnal Lrlbunals of
8wanda and Lhe former ?ugoslavla). lL ls ln facL unclear where Lhe powers of Lhe SecurlLy
Councll end, prompLlng concerns of parochlallsm. klabbers observes, wlLh Lhe caveaL LhaL
lL ls a heurlsLlc devlce, LhaL Lhls ls parL of a chaln of acLlon and reacLlon, move and counLer-
move: globallzaLlon calls forLh locallzaLlon, whlch Lhen aL Lhe same Llme, by looklng llke
parochlallsm, may lnsplre yeL oLher manlfesLaLlons of Lhe global Lhrough de-locallzaLlon."
Agaln, Lhe un SecurlLy Councll ls an excellenL example, lL has cenLrallzed so much power
LhaL lL ls unclear whaL would happen lf lL were Lo acL oltto vltes, lndeed, wheLher Lhere ls a
space for an oltto vltes aL all.
31
1hls has lLself prompLed demands for SecurlLy Councll
reform ln order Lo globallze whaL has been locallzed. 1he llmlLaLlon of power LhaL
consLlLuLlonallsm promlses does of course noL end wlLh lnLernaLlonal organlzaLlons.
ConsLlLuLlonallsm promlses a framework LhaL would enclrcle all acLors of lnLernaLlonal law.

1he noLlon of global consLlLuLlonallsm, parLlcularly of Lhe llberal legallsL Lype, Lhus provldes
lnLernaLlonal lawyers wlLh a Lool for allocaLlng power and Lraclng accounLablllLy hlerarchles
wlLhln a framework LhaL may oLherwlse seem chaoLlc aL besL or Lhe frulLs of hegemonlc
power sLruggles aL worsL. 1he use of globallzaLlon Lermlnology - noLably wlLhln Lhelr
speclallzed language of accounLablllLy" and leglLlmacy" - Lherefore appears Lo be an
aLLempL by lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lo reclalm some of Lhe debaLe LhaL Lhey may have losL
hold of ln Lhe globallzlng and yeL locallzlng world. ln oLher words, dlscusslons of global
consLlLuLlonallsm by publlc lnLernaLlonal lawyers could Lherefore be undersLood as
aLLempLs aL denlal or regulaLlon of fragmenLaLlon and as a parL of a bld Lo regaln
relevance. Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm, no maLLer how loose, would necessarlly acknowledge
a cerLaln seL of unlversal ldeas, wheLher rlghLs, prlnclples, or an lnLernaLlonal legal
language ln general. 1he recognlLlon (or raLher lnLroducLlon) of such unlversal law would
lndeed seLLle Lhe debaLe on Lhe fragmenLaLlon of lnLernaLlonal law - aL Lhe very leasL ln

30
lL appears LhaL Lhls ls by meoos of, noL desplLe, complemenLarlLy.
31
!An kLA88L8S, An ln18CuuC1lCn 1C ln1L8nA1lCnAL lnS1l1u1lCnAL LAW 168 (2009).
[vol. 13 no. 01 10 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
regard Lo a loss of an overall perspecLlve on Lhe law. 1hls ln Lurn would allow lnLernaLlonal
lawyers Lo belleve LhaL Lhey exerclse conLrol over pollLlcal processes.

Powever, such concern for Lhe allocaLlon of pollLlcal power, ln parLlcular for Lhe resLrlcLlon
of power Lhrough a consLlLuLlon, appears one-dlmenslonal. Lawyers wlLh Lhls concern
assume a sLrlcL dlvlslon of pollLlcs and law - an assumpLlon prevalenL ln Lhe llberal-
democraLlc model of consLlLuLlonallsm. ConsLlLuLlonal law accordlng Lo Lhls model ls
belleved Lo pre-daLe pollLlcs and ls Lherefore largely lefL unquesLloned. WhaL ls omlLLed ln
Lhls vlew are Lhe complex power sLrucLures LhaL enable law maklng and coostltotloo-
maklng ln Lhe flrsL place. 1he ldea of law as Lhe ob[ecLlve frame LhaL can keep Lhe
sub[ecLlve pollLlcal process ln check wlll be explored furLher ln Lhe followlng moLlvaLlon.


ll. 1be keqolotloo of lotetootloool 5oclety tbtooqb low

Closely relaLed Lo Lhe lawyers' deslre for Lhe llmlLaLlon of pollLlcal power ls Lhe deslre for
Lhe regulaLlon of socleLy Lhrough law. lf Lhe precedlng moLlvaLlon was abouL Lhe reason for
lnvoklng global consLlLuLlonallsm ln Lhe flrsL place (Lhe resLrlcLlon of pollLlcal power), Lhls
moLlvaLlon ls abouL Lhe approprlaLe means Lo achleve lL (law as a Lool). Lawyers llke Lo
Lhlnk of law havlng ob[ecLlve sLandard-seLLlng properLles, whlch sLand ln conLrasL Lo Lhe
pollLlcal clalm LhaL mlghL ls rlghL." lndeed, as referred Lo above, Lhls ls ln a sense Lhe
prlmary funcLlon of a lawyer: lL ls Lhelr bread and buLLer." arLlclpanLs ln Lhe debaLe on
global consLlLuLlonallsm belleve LhaL a global consLlLuLlon would provlde an approprlaLe
framework LhaL regulaLes soclal llfe ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal (as well as Lhe naLlonal) sphere.
1hls percepLlon of consLlLuLlonallsm reflecLs a percepLlon of a wlde-ranglng, lf noL all-
encompasslng, poLency of Lhe law.

lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lend Lo respond Lo lnLernaLlonal evenLs wlLh a demand for Lhe
greaLer or beLLer appllcaLlon of law. Any changes ln global soclal reallLy are belleved Lo call
for new or enhanced regulaLlon. ln LhaL sense, many lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lend Lo dlsplay
an anxleLy abouL Lhe lack of law.
32
Cne ofLen encounLers Lhe argumenL LhaL Lhere ls a
dlchoLomy beLween law on Lhe one hand and pollLlcs on Lhe oLher, wlLh pollLlcs
obsLrucLlng Lhe way Lo a Lrue legal sysLem. lssues maklng Lhe headllnes such as Lhe pllghL
of Lhe deLalnees ln Lhe deLenLlon camps aL CuanLanamo 8ay have glven rlse Lo demands
predlcaLed on Lhe sLrong bellef LhaL more law would be LransformaLlve of currenL
(pollLlcal) sLandards. lor example, Lord SLeyn of Lhe uk Pouse of Lords demanded more
law by famously referrlng Lo CuanLanamo 8ay as a legal black hole."
33
Lord SLeyn argued
LhaL ln[usLlces had been perpeLraLed on lndlvlduals ln Lhe name of pollLlcs and securlLy
who Lhen have no effecLlve recourse Lo law.

32
MA8kS, sopto noLe 32.
33
!ohan SLeyn, Coootooomo 8oy. 1be leqol block bole, 27
Lh
l. A. Mann LecLure (23 november 2003).
2012] 11 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers

Such communlcaLlve and emanclpaLory power of law holds Lrue, buL whaL ls lefL ouL of Lhe
plcLure ls Lhe excluslonary and excluslve power of law. 1he poLenLlal of law Lo boLh
empower as well as dlsempower has been greaLly dlscussed ln human rlghLs law. Puman
rlghLs law, or raLher Lhe lack of human rlghLs law and Lhe lack of lLs enforcemenL, has,
predomlnanLly slnce Lhe 1990s, been aL Lhe cenLre of much of Lhe debaLe on Lhe poLency
of law Lo regulaLe soclal reallLy. Puman rlghLs law ln lLs LradlLlonal sense - as a negaLlve
obllgaLlon on Lhe SLaLe power Lo refraln from dolng someLhlng Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of
lndlvlduals' rlghLs - ls belleved Lo be Lhe chlef Lool wlLh whlch arblLrary power can be made
accounLable.

ln Lhls conLexL, 8alph Wllde has argued LhaL law, parLlcularly human rlghLs law, ls
assoclaLed wlLh a general redempLlvlsL ldea.
34
1he need Lo redeem Lhe exerclse of
supposedly arblLrary power prompLs demand for more law. noL only ls law seen as Lhe
approprlaLe medlum wlLh whlch Lo consLraln arblLrary power and Lo Lhereby promoLe
democracy, lL ls also seen as Lhe approprlaLe medlum for promoLlng peace LhroughouL Lhe
world.
33
lnLernaLlonal lawyers speaklng of global consLlLuLlonallsm have also adopLed Lhls
empowerlng faceL of Lhe law. ln oLher words, Lhe use of global consLlLuLlonal language
provldes lnLernaLlonal lawyers wlLh a legal Lool LhaL Lhey regard as a Lool for regulaLlng o
bettet global soclal reallLy. Powever, such overemphasls on Lhe empowerlng properLles of
law can Lhen of course vell Lhe dlsempowerlng properLles of law.

lL appears LhaL all conLemporary crlses are meL wlLh a call for more law, as Lhe mechanlsm
by whlch Lo overcome Lhe respecLlve crlsls. 1he worldwlde flnanclal crlsls also relgnlLed Lhe
law as redempLlon" debaLe, lf uslng a less exploslve Lermlnology Lhan LhaL employed for
human rlghLs. 1he mosL commonly employed descrlpLlon of whaL happened ln Lhe global
flnanclal melLdown ls LhaL markeL forces splraled ouL of conLrol due Lo a lack of regulaLlon.
Poward uavles, ulrecLor of Lhe London School of Lconomlcs and ollLlcal Sclence, wrlLes,
Cne wldely accepLed concluslon emerglng from analyses of Lhe flnanclal crlsls LhaL began
ln 2007 ls LhaL lnLernaLlonal neLworks of regulaLors have noL kepL pace wlLh Lhe lncreaslng
globallzaLlon of flnanclal markeLs."
36


uavles' response Lo Lhls ln Lhe racLlLloners Speclal SecLlon" of Clobal ollcy ls LhaL Lhe
problem" ls Lhe absence of a hlerarchy beLween Lhe varlous regulaLory bodles and Lhe
absence of a cenLral body wlLh Lhe auLhorlLy Lo requlre any of Lhe oLher organlsms Lo acL,

34
8alph Wllde, costloq llqbt oo tbe leqol block bole. 5ome lolltlcol lssoes ot 5toke, 3 Lu8CLAn PuMAn 8lCP1S
LAW 8LvlLW 332, 334 (2006).
33
!urgen Pabermas & Claran Cronln (Lr.), uoes tbe coostltotlooollzotloo of lotetootloool low 5tlll nove o cbooce?
lo !u8CLn PA8L8MAS, 1PL ulvluLu WLS1 116 (2006), see olso 5peclol lssoe. 1be kootloo ltoject of lotetootloool low,
10 CL8MAn LAW !Cu8nAL 1-116 (2009).
36
Poward uavles, Clobol lloooclol keqolotloo oftet tbe cteJlt ctlsls, 1 CLC8AL CLlC? 193 (2010).
[vol. 13 no. 01 12 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
on any parLlcular Llme frame."
37
Lawyers [oln Lhe economlsLs ln Lhe rheLorlc of dlsapproval
LhaL - ln uavles' words - no one ls ln charge of anyone else" by explalnlng (self-
lmporLanLly?) LhaL lncreased regulaLlon would resLrlcL Lhls powerful yeL eluslve markeL
force" from causlng more havoc ln Lhe fuLure. Law can flx any bllps ln socleLy's usually
ordered progress Lowards perfecLlon. Cne could of course reLorL LhaL lawyers afLer all
possess Lhe necessary experLlse for employlng law as a Lool for soclal change, and LhaL
Lherefore, Lhere ls noLhlng wrong wlLh lawyers (as experLs) employlng Lhls Lool. 8eflecLlng
on Lhe pollLlcs of experLlse LhaL may be lmpllcaLed lf lnLernaLlonal lawyers lnvoke auLhorlLy
(as Lhey dld when pronounclng Lhe lraq war lllegal,) Lhe auLhors of Lhe arLlcle We are
1eachers of lnLernaLlonal Law" conslder Lwo aspecLs: Cn Lhe one hand, Lhe experLlse lles ln
Lhe legal Lralnlng, experlence and label of lawyer," on Lhe oLher hand, law can be such a
powerful means of lmpacLlng soclal reallLy LhaL lL cannoL be lefL excluslvely Lo cerLaln
lndlvlduals (even lf Lhey bear Lhe label lawyer") Lo clalm knowledge of whaL [usLlce," or
oLher slmllarly lnfluenLlal Lerms, ls and means.
38
Lawyers have an undenlably sLrong
lnLeresL ln malnLalnlng Lhe assoclaLlons of experLlse LhaL Lhe label lawyer" lnvokes. ln
many legal sysLems around Lhe world - parLlcularly Lhose legal sysLems LhaL are home Lo
scholars of global consLlLuLlonallsm - a consLlLuLlon ls Lhe mechanlsm LhaL encapsulaLes Lhe
enLlre legal sysLem, lL ls, as 1eubner sLaLes Lhe law of laws."
39


Powever, as dlscussed above, oLher forces also appear Lo have Lhe capaclLy Lo regulaLe
socleLy on Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere, for example, markeL forces.
40
uavld kennedy observes
LhaL lnLernaLlonal lawyers are aware of Lhe danger of loslng conLrol over lmpacLlng on soclal
reallLy when he sLaLes: A greaL deal of Lhe urgency ln Lhe progresslve case for bulldlng
lnLernaLlonal lnsLlLuLlons has always come from Lhe fear LhaL Lhe lnLernaLlonal regulaLory
pro[ecL would fall behlnd Lhe naLural advances of Lhe lnLernaLlonal markeL."
41


Along wlLh markeL forces, Lhere ls an lncrease ln prlvaLe law lssues on Lhe fleld LhaL we
know as publlc lnLernaLlonal law. Cne need only Lhlnk of prlvaLe mlllLary companles LhaL
derlve Lhelr obllgaLlons from Lhelr conLracLs, or Lhe provlslons for Lhe reparaLlons of
vlcLlms ln Lhe 8ome SLaLuLe, or lnvesLmenL arrangemenLs ln bllaLeral lnvesLmenL LreaLles.
lor lnLernaLlonal lawyers, Lhe dlvldlng llne beLween Lhe publlc and Lhe prlvaLe ls exLremely

37
lJ.
38
MaLLhew Craven, Susan Marks, Cerry Slmpson & 8alph Wllde, we ote 1eocbets of lotetootloool low, 17 L!lL
363, 370 (2004).
39
CunLer 1eubner, A coostltotloool Momeot? 1be loqlcs of nlttloq tbe 8ottom, lo 1PL llnAnClAL C8lSlS ln
CCnS1l1u1lCnAL L8SLC1lvL: 1PL uA8k SluL Cl lunC1lCnAL ulllL8Ln1lA1lCn 32 (oul k[aer, CunLher 1eubner & AlberLo
lebbra[o eds., 2011).
40
1hls should of course noL LempL us lnLo vlewlng markeL forces as enLlrely dlsLlncL from law. 1he enabllng power
of law applles here Loo.
41
kLnnLu?, sopto noLe 7, aL 33.
2012] 13 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
slgnlflcanL: publlc law enables lawyers Lo predlcL ouLcomes, lL means Lhe unlversallzaLlon
of cerLaln sLandards, and lL means coottol. rlvaLe law on Lhe oLher hand, provldes legal
sub[ecLs (noLe neverLheless, Lhe Lermlnology of sobject) a largely lmpeneLrable legal
bubble ln whlch Lhey are accorded wlLh conLracLual freedom. CerLalnly, Lhls freedom ls
resLrlcLed by publlc law, for example as regards Lhe legal age of Lhe legal sub[ecLs. 8uL, Lhe
pleLhora of conLracLs means LhaL Lhere ls a large body of law LhaL ls lnLanglble and
obscured or even lnvlslble. A consLlLuLlonallzed lnLernaLlonal law would relnLroduce Lhe
publlcness" of publlc lnLernaLlonal law ln a way LhaL lL would acL as a framework for Lhls
currenLly obscured or lnvlslble sphere of legal relaLlonshlps. 1he framework would provlde
a mechanlsm of maklng Lhese legal relaLlonshlps more conLrollable. lL ls afLer all conLrol
and order LhaL provlde Lhe comforLlng duveL (or ls lL a securlLy blankeL?) for lawyers.
ConsLlLuLlonallsm, Lhe qulnLessence of Lhe publlc," would Lhus undoubLedly conflrm Lhe
power of law Lo regulaLe lnLernaLlonal socleLy.


lll. 1be leqltlmotloo of lotetootloool low

LeglLlmacy, parLlcularly ln regard Lo Lhe dlsclpllne aL large, ls an lssue frequenLly addressed
by lnLernaLlonal lawyers. lL ls, accordlng Lo Lhls analysls, Lhe Lhlrd maln moLlvaLlon for
lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lo speak of Lhelr fleld as consLlLuLlonallzlng." WouLer Werner sLaLes
LhaL Lhe debaLe on a global consLlLuLlonal order lmpllcaLes a normaLlve pro[ecL ln LhaL
advocaLes of a global consLlLuLlonal order are aL Lhe same Llme Lrylng Lo brlng such an
order abouL.
42
WhaL ls happenlng ls a self-allocaLlon of power Lo lnLernaLlonal lawyers
whlch aL Lhe same Llme raLher usefully seLLles Lhe debaLe abouL Lhe leglLlmacy of
lnLernaLlonal law lLself: Lhe very Lerm consLlLuLlon" carrles wlLh lL a promlse of
leglLlmacy.
43
1he leglLlmacy of lnLernaLlonal law ls ofLen quesLloned ln Lhe conLexL of a
famlllar debaLe on wheLher lnLernaLlonal law ls really law?" lor Lhe mosL parL, Lhls
dlscusslon ls couched wlLhln Lhe conLexL of Lhe lack of enforcemenL mechanlsms on Lhe
lnLernaLlonal sphere. A lack of enforcemenL means a lack of leglLlmacy ln LhaL Lhere may be
no need Lo comply wlLh lnLernaLlonal law.
44
Some auLhors sLaLe LhaL an effecLlve
enforcemenL mechanlsm ls Lhus cenLral Lo any legal sysLem and LhaL Lhe absence of such
an enforcemenL mechanlsm on Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere aL Lhe same Llme means Lhe
absence of law. CLher auLhors belleve LhaL all acLlons by SLaLes are deLermlned by (mlllLary
and economlc) self-lnLeresL of SLaLes. 1hus, Lhere ls no effecLlve lnLernaLlonal law where
Lhe self-lnLeresL of SLaLes does noL accord wlLh lL.
43
1aken Lo Lhe exLreme, Lhe excluslon of

42
WouLer Werner, 1be oevet-eoJloq closote. coostltotlooollsm ooJ lotetootloool low, lo 18AnSnA1lCnAL
CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM 348 (nlcholas 1sagourlas ed., 2007).
43
!an klabbers, coostltotlooollsm llte, 1 ln1L8nA1lCnAL C8CAnlZA1lCnS LAW 8LvlLW 31, 47 (2004).
44
ln Lerms of Lhe moral duLy of clLlzens Lo obey lnLernaLlonal law, see kuMM, sopto noLe 14, aL 908.
43
5ee e.q. !ACk L. CCLuSMl1P & L8lC A. CSnL8, 1PL LlMl1S Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW (2003).
[vol. 13 no. 01 14 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
an lotetootloool lnLeresL means LhaL lnLernaLlonal affalrs are buL an assemblage of self-
lnLeresLs (an lnLernaLlonal anarchy), barrlng Lhe posslblllLy of a separaLe lnLernaLlonal legal
order. Many advocaLes of a global consLlLuLlonal order promoLe Lhe oLher exLreme by
asserLlng LhaL a loose lnLernaLlonal order of coordlnaLlon has glven way Lo a
comprehenslve lnLernaLlonal order of cooperaLlon. 1hey Lherefore noL only submlL LhaL an
lnLernaLlonal legal order exlsLs, buL go a (normaLlve) sLep furLher by clalmlng LhaL Lhe
lnLernaLlonal legal order ls a coostltotloool order.

1he quesLlon of wheLher lnLernaLlonal law ls really law ls one LhaL has dogged Lhe fleld
slnce Lhe flrsL LreaLles were slgned, and has lndeed long been clalmed Lo be defeaLed.
46
lL
Lherefore merlLs asklng: why Lhe recenL lnLeresL ln consLlLuLlonallsm as a mechanlsm Lo
seLLle Lhe debaLe on leglLlmacy once and for all? lL appears LhaL Lhe new leglLlmacy crlsls of
lnLernaLlonal law ls, agaln, connecLed Lo globallzaLlon processes: globallzaLlon has Lo a
cerLaln exLenL dlsplaced sLaLe consenL as Lhe source of leglLlmacy slnce lL has broughL wlLh
lL a large number of non-consensual norms Lhus preclplLaLlng a vacancy for leglLlmacy.
47
lL
ls an assumpLlon underlylng all ldeas of consLlLuLlonallsm LhaL, [usL as Lhere ls no socleLy
wlLhouL law so Loo Lhere ls no law wlLhouL socleLy (obl socletos, lbl jos). ConsLlLuLlonallsm
ls Lhe legal framework LhaL perLalns Lo Lhe coexlsLence of humans on a glven LerrlLory, ln
oLher words, lL ls Lhe legal framework of a socleLy, a legal communlLy. Correspondlngly,
qlobol consLlLuLlonallsm ls Lhe legal framework of lotetootloool socleLy. WlLh Lhls ln mlnd,
Lhe flrsL polnL Lo be made ls LhaL global consLlLuLlonallsm puLs an end Lo quesLlons abouL
wbetbet an lnLernaLlonal legal order exlsLs. lor lL ls lmposslble Lo conLemplaLe Lhe Loplc of
global consLlLuLlonallsm wlLhouL recognlzlng lLs basls ln an lnLernaLlonal leqol socleLy. 1hls
seems all Lhe more apparenL when one calls aLLenLlon Lo Lhe rooL of Lhe word
consLlLuLlonallsm as belng consLlLuLe." A consLlLuLlon consLlLuLes" a legal socleLy. 1he
consLlLuLlonallsL language evokes ldeas of a normaLlve framework LhaL ls ordered and
qooJ: lL ls a framework LhaL has Lhe poLenLlal Lo largely remaln unquesLloned, noL slmply
by lnLernaLlonal lawyers, buL by enLlre socleLles.

Werner sLaLes LhaL Lhe rlse of global consLlLuLlonal debaLes can parLly be undersLood as
an aLLempL Lo make sense of some (recenL) developmenLs ln lnLernaLlonal law."
48
l belleve
Lhe pro[ecL of Lhese lnLernaLlonal lawyers ls dlrecLed Lowards someLhlng more Lhan a
deslre Lo raLlonallze and order. As sLaLed above, lL seems LhaL Lhe goal ls Lo regaln some of
Lhe lnfluence LhaL lnLernaLlonal lawyers may have losL ln Lhe LhlckeLs of globallzaLlon
processes - or may never have had due Lo Lhe supposedly unresolved quesLlon of Lhe
leglLlmacy of Lhe fleld lLself. 1he above Lhree moLlvaLlons all share Lhe common Lheme LhaL

46
1homas lranck clalmed ln 1993 LhaL lnLernaLlonal law has enLered lLs posL-onLologlcal era" ln 1PCMAS l8AnCk,
lAl8nLSS ln ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW Anu lnS1l1u1lCnS 6 (1993).
47
8CuAnSk?, sopto noLe 1, aL 383.
48
WL8nL8, sopto noLe 42, aL 331.
2012] 13 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
lnLernaLlonal lawyers are seeklng a means of expresslng Lhelr concerns of Lhelr own
(posslbly dwlndllng or alLernaLlvely never exlsLlng) lnfluence. lnLernaLlonal lawyers hope Lo
express and raLlonallze and perhaps coottol globallzaLlon processes on Lhelr fleld.

1he prollferaLlon of lnLernaLlonal and LransnaLlonal forces (globallzaLlon processes) has
parLly dlsplaced and aL any raLe decenLered lnLernaLlonal law dlscourses. lnLernaLlonal
lawyers are observlng Lhe facLual changes on Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere such as Lhe lncrease
ln lnLerconnecLedness and Lhe lnLernaLlonal markeL and wlsh Lo address Lhese wlLh legal
sLrucLures LhaL uphold Lhelr own relevance. Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm offers Lhe perfecL
soluLlon: lL ls flexlble enough Lo Lake pollLlcs and economlcs lnLo accounL, and aL Lhe same
Llme provldes ground for a sLrong normaLlve framework. 1he appeal of a sLrong regulaLlng
framework LhaL aL Lhe same Llme ls reallsLlc enough Lo Lake oLher (non-normaLlve) forces
lnLo accounL ls overwhelmlng.


A< !,,'-&B C6"@$@-& ." !==$%#$.5D

So whaL of Lhls appeal?" ls lL merely a maLLer of wlshful Lhlnklng or ls lL someLhlng more
compulslve? As sLaLed above, aL Lhe cenLre of Lhe debaLe on Lhe LenaclLy of global
consLlLuLlonallsm are lLs posslble regulaLlng and leglLlmlzlng properLles, whlch aL Lhe same
Llme secure Lhe relevance of lnLernaLlonal lawyers. lL ls no secreL LhaL lnLernaLlonal lawyers
- lndeed lawyers aL large - llke Lo Lhlnk of legal sysLems as unlfled and coherenL.
49

Mlmlcklng Lhe soverelgn power LhaL lnLernaLlonal lawyers are famlllar wlLh from Lhelr
respecLlve domesLlc legal seLLlngs (see Analoglcal ConsLlLuLlonallsm), Lhe un as an
organlzaLlon ls raLlonallzed Lo encompass a hlerarchlcal sLrucLure wlLh a cenLrallzed power
sysLem. As uavld kennedy observes, Lhls ls a paradoxlcal enLerprlse, slnce whaL ls
happenlng ls a sLruggle Lo somehow relnvenL aL an lnLernaLlonal level Lhe soverelgn
auLhorlLy lL was deLermlned Lo Lranscend" ln Lhe flrsL place.
30
lnLeresLlngly, kennedy
descrlbes Lhls enLerprlse as an obsesslon."
31
Maybe, whaL we are ln facL deallng wlLh ls
noL only an appeal," buL someLhlng more lrreslsLlble.

CondlLloned by Lhelr legal Lralnlng, lawyers are compelled Lo aLLempL Lo flnd a prlnclple"
ln Lhe chaos, a sLrucLure" ln Lhe confuslon and a deflnlLlon" ln Lhe varled lnLerpreLaLlons
and deLermlnaLlons. Legal Lralnlng, albelL Lo a larger exLenL ln Lhe clvll law sysLem, revolves

49
1hls appears Lo be evldenced ln Lhe recenL redlscovery of sysLems Lheory, even as a form of arLlculaLlng
plurallsm, parLlcularly pronounced by CunLher 1eubner, see 1Lu8nL8, sopto noLe 39, CunLher 1eubner, 5elf-
coostltotlooollzloq 1Ncs? Oo tbe llokoqe of ltlvote ooJ lobllc cotpotote coJes of cooJoct, 18 lnulAnA !Cu8nAL
Cl CLC8AL LLCAL S1uulLS 17-38 (2011), CunLher 1eubner, coostltotlooollzloq lolycootextotollty, 19 SCClAL Anu LLCAL
S1uulLS 17-38 (2009).
30
uavld kennedy, 1be lotetootloool 5tyle lo lostwot low ooJ lollcy, 7 u1AP LAW 8LvlLW 7, 14 (1994).
31
lJ.
[vol. 13 no. 01 16 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
around learnlng a sLrucLure and deflnlLlons ln absLracL and Lhen applylng Lhese absLracL
legal rules Lo cases. ln Lhe domesLlc legal seLLlng, Lhese sLrucLures and deflnlLlons are
exLremely useful for reasons of legal cerLalnLy and soclal sLablllLy. lL ls seen as a necessary
evll LhaL Lhere wlll be excepLlonal lndlvldual cases (so-called hard cases") ln whlch Lhe
appllcaLlon of Lhe sLrucLure and deflnlLlon wlll lead Lo ln[usLlces,
32
and lndeed Lhe sysLem
normally provldes enough flexlblllLy for adapLlng Lhe sLrucLure lf Lhe lndlvldual cases
become Lhe norm. Cverall, coherence ls Lhe order of Lhe day.

ln lnLernaLlonal law, a greaLer exLenL of cauLlon ls requlred when lL comes Lo such
absLracLlons. lL ls cerLalnly Lrue LhaL Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere does noL have Lhe same level
of coherence as a domesLlc legal sysLem. Coherence here can be vlewed ln a formal or a
subsLanLlve way. ulrlch PalLern, a crlLlc of global consLlLuLlonallsm, re[ecLs analogles
beLween Lhe lnLernaLlonal and Lhe domesLlc on Lhe basls LhaL he belleves LhaL
lnLernaLlonal law lacks Lhe symbollc-esLheLlcal dlmenslon" lnherenL ln naLlonal
consLlLuLlonal law.
33
1he greaL dlverslLy of envlronmenLs, eLhnlclLles, cusLoms, and value
sysLems ln Lhe world does noL allow for Lhe exLrapolaLlon of Lhe symbollsm of
consLlLuLlonallsm from Lhe domesLlc sphere. Whlle consLlLuLlons do noL necessarlly
lncorporaLe a greaL exLenL of power or deLall ln Lhemselves, lndeed are aL Llmes falrly brlef
documenLs (Lhe Cerman ConsLlLuLlon) or are comprlsed of no parLlcular documenL (Lngllsh
consLlLuLlonallsm), Lhelr lJeo neverLheless porLrays ordered power sLrucLures. 1he
emphasls on Lhe symbollsm of Lhe consLlLuLlon, represenLed here Lhrough PalLern's work,
can be referred Lo as formal coherence. !ason 8eckeLL, ln conLrasL, applles Lhe lnvocaLlon
of coherence Lo a posslble pollLlcs of domlnaLlon, he warns: 8ecause coherence ls an
unaLLalnable goal, Lhe search for coherence" becomes Lhe wlllful dlsregard of a reallLy of
confllcL, Lhe hegemonlc lmposlLlon of a parLlcular pro[ecL whlch has, always already,
subsumed and regulaLed lLs oLhers.
34


8eckeLL's concern abouL coherence ls Lhus subsLanLlve: Pow mlghL lL be lnvoked? As a
proxy for domlnaLlon? noLably, Lhe lnvocaLlon of plurallsm as opposed Lo coherence may
noL be Lhe answer Lo breaklng such paLLerns of domlnaLlon. lL appears LhaL when
lnLernaLlonal lawyers do lnvoke plurallsm" ln conLrasL Lo coherence, Lhen lL ls a plurallsm
LhaL ls resLrlcLed Lo Lhe famlllar llberal-democraLlc Lra[ecLorles. A plurallsm of llberallsm, so
Lo speak. lnLernaLlonal lawyers are uncomforLable wlLh embraclng Lrue" legal plurallsm.
lor Lhem, lnLernaLlonal law wlLh lLs plurallLy and dlverslLy ls a challenge, ln Lhe form of an
uncuL dlamond LhaL requlres some legal aLLenLlon unLll lL wlll shlne ln all lLs clarlLy.
CerLalnly, Lhe sparkllng dlamond of lnLernaLlonal law ls someLhlng of whlch many

32
kCSkLnnlLMl, sopto noLe 6, aL 393.
33
ulrlch PalLern, lotetootloooles vetfossooqstecbt?, 128 A8CPlv uLS CllLn1LlCPLn 8LCP1S 311-336 (2003).
34
!ason 8eckeLL, ltoqmeototloo, opeooess, ooJ beqemooy. oJjoJlcotloo ooJ tbe w1O, lo ln1L8nA1lCnAL LCCnCMlC
LAW Anu nA1lCnAL Au1CnCM? 44 (MeredlLh kolsky Lewls, Susy lrankel ed., 2010).
2012] 17 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
lnLernaLlonal lawyers wlll already have a menLal lmage or a fanLasy. ConsLlLuLlonallsm
enables lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lo brlng abouL LhaL lmage.

1aklng Lhe above conslderaLlons abouL non-regulaLory forces on Lhe lnLernaLlonal sphere
lnLo accounL, one could however conslder wheLher Lhe debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm
ls more Lhan a deslre or a fanLasy, wheLher lL ls ln facL a survlval mechanlsm. ln Lhe face of
Lhe fragmenLaLlon of lnLernaLlonal law lnLo speclallzed legal sysLems, could lnLernaLlonal
lawyers be flghLlng for Lhe survlval of Lhelr professlon? lf Lhls ls Lhe case, and lf
lnLernaLlonal law ls lndeed ln Lhe mldsL of a leglLlmacy crlsls, should one regard Lhe model
of a global consLlLuLlon, whlch provldes a normaLlve framework for all of lnLernaLlonal
socleLy, as Lhe savlng grace for Lhe professlon? ln LhaL evenL, lnLernaLlonal lawyers could
hardly be blamed for Lhe urgency wlLh whlch global consLlLuLlonallsm ls presenLed, lndeed
wlLh Lhe lnfaLuaLlon whlch ls becomlng more and more evldenL.

1hls survlval argumenL ln regard Lo Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal dlsclpllne ls however only
persuaslve lf one assumes LhaL every legal sysLem requlres a deLermlnaLe seL of rules - or
perhaps values - ln order Lo be observed. 1he survlval argumenL presupposes LhaL
lndlvlduals can volce preferences ln Lerms of who can make legal declslons, and LhaL once
Lhls preference has been ascerLalned Lhe pollLlcal body can acL upon Lhem and oLher lssues
arlslng from Lhem. 8uL, as MarLLl koskennleml explalned ln ltom Apoloqy to utoplo, Lhls
vlew ls a premlse of llberallsm.
33
1hus, lnLernaLlonal law would only be ln a leglLlmacy crlsls
lf lL were excluslvely predlcaLed on Lhe pollLlcal model or LradlLlon of llberal-democracy. lL
would cerLalnly go beyond Lhe scope of Lhls arLlcle Lo sLaLe whaL Lhe premlses of
lnLernaLlonal law are and wheLher Lhey lle ln a parLlcular pollLlcal LradlLlon, sufflce lL Lo say
LhaL lnLernaLlonal law could also derlve lLs leglLlmacy (assumlng lL requlres Lhls) from oLher
sources, oLher democraLlc models for example. Lven lf Lhe llberal legallsL LradlLlon ls Lhe
predomlnanL LradlLlon, lL cannoL be assumed Lo be unlversal. 1he dlscourse on global
consLlLuLlonallsm ls Lherefore noL one of survlval for Lhe dlsclpllne. 8uL whaL abouL Lhe
survlval of Lhose lnLernaLlonal lawyers parLaklng ln Lhe dlscourse? Could lL be LhaL Lhey are
ln desperaLe need of mechanlsms Lo ensure Lhelr survlval?

8eckeLL flLLlngly wrlLes abouL lnLernaLlonal lawyers cravlng" consLlLuLlonallzaLlon.
36
A
cravlng ls sLronger Lhan a mere appeal slnce lL carrles wlLh lL a sense of compulslon, buL lL
also acknowledges LhaL whaLever one ls cravlng ls dlspensable, and could ulLlmaLely even
lead Lo self-desLrucLlon. Lawyers are accusLomed Lo sLrucLures and deflnlLlons from Lhelr
domesLlc legal sysLems and Lherefore long for Lhem when deallng wlLh lnLernaLlonal law
(wlLhdrawal). lL ls dlfflculL Lo defy Lhe pull of order, whlch offers lLself as a rellef Lo Lhe
chaos. 1he compulslve slde of a cravlng ls ofLen due Lo an addlcLlon. An lnLernaLlonal

33
kCSkLnnlLMl, sopto noLe 6, aL 73.
36
!ason 8eckeLL, 1be lolltlcs of lotetootloool low - 1weoty eots lotet. A keply, Ill. uebote, avallable aL:
hLLp://www.e[llLalk.org/auLhor/[ason-beckeLL/ (lasL accessed 23 uecember 2011).
[vol. 13 no. 01 18 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
lawyer's addlcLlon for a consLlLuLlonallsm whlch promlses order, as any oLher addlcLlon,
comes wlLh a healLh warnlng: Lhe more Lhe cravlng ls fed, Lhe sLronger Lhe deslre and Lhe
greaLer Lhe dependency. 1he sLronger Lhe deslre, Lhe more arduous lL becomes Lo quesLlon
one's behavlor and any posslble slgnlflcanL problems lnherenL ln LhaL whlch glves rellef.
Llberal consLlLuLlonallsm ls a very poLenL drug wlLh hlghly addlcLlve properLles. lL can offer
a momenLary rellef on Lhe conLradlcLlons and dlverslLy evldenL ln Lhe global arena by
promlslng hlerarchles, order and conLrol.

1eubner recenLly wroLe abouL collecLlve addlcLlon, buL noL Lo consLlLuLlonallsm, raLher Lo
growLh, parLlcularly as regards Lhe economy.
37
lnLeresLlngly, consLlLuLlonallsm ls for hlm
Lhe anLldoLe, noL Lhe addlcLlon. 1eubner approaches Lhe phenomenon of collecLlve
addlcLlon by employlng meLhodologles borrowed from sysLems Lheory. ln hls vlew, '[l]L ls
posslble LhaL soclal processes as such mlghL exhlblL Lhe properLles of addlcLlve behavlour
qulLe lndependenLly of Lhe dependence syndromes of lndlvldual human belngs'."
38
Slnce
Lhe presenL arLlcle focuses ln parLlcular on lndlvlduals (speclflc lnLernaLlonal lawyers) as
parL of a collecLlve (professlonals belonglng Lo Lhe dlsclpllne of lnLernaLlonal law), l would
dlsagree wlLh collecLlve addlcLlon belng a phenomenon lndependenL of Lhe lndlvlduals
maklng up Lhls collecLlve. Powever, Lhere ls much Lo be sald abouL collecLlve addlcLlon as a
soclal phenomenon. And Lhe compulslons for growLh appear Lo be a very real lnsLance of
addlcLlve behavlor, wheLher engaged ln by a collecLlve acLor (as 1eubner would say) or by
lndlvlduals. Powever, raLher Lhan consLlLuLlonallsm belng a 'new orlenLaLlon"' LhaL wlll
lead away from Lhe compulslons for growLh, whaL mlghL raLher be aL hand ls Lhe danger
real LhreaL of Lradlng one addlcLlon for anoLher. AddlcLlon Lransfer ls a real LhreaL. 1eubner
envlsages LhaL Lhe collecLlve addlcLlon for growLh would come Lo a momenL of 'hlLLlng Lhe
boLLom'," a momenL of near-caLasLrophe, whlch would aL Lhe same Llme be Lhe
consLlLuLlonal momenL - Lhe momenL of Lhe LransformaLlon of Lhe 'lnner consLlLuLlon'."
39

WhaL he does noL Lake lnLo accounL ls LhaL Lhe collecLlve addlcLlon for growLh can only be
overcome by addlcLlon Lo anoLher drug, lndeed, LhaL he ls Lo a cerLaln exLenL promoLlng
addlcLlon Lransfer.

Who Lhen are Lhe lnLernaLlonal lawyers who fall prey Lo lLs addlcLlve properLles? Are Lhey
users" or abusers" of Lhe drug? As noLed above, Lhe debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm
has galned wlder appeal ln Lhe pasL years, buL has lLs eplcenLer ln Cermany or aL leasL wlLh
Cerman-speaklng scholars. Whlle lnLernaLlonal lawyers around Lhe world have been
lnsplred by consLlLuLlonallsm on a global scale, Lhe debaLe ln Cermany has become
parLlcularly exLenslve and deLalled. WlLh Lhe onLologlcal quesLlons and doubLs largely
defeaLed, scholars such as Andreas llscher-Lescano, Anne eLers, Angellka Lmmerlch-

37
1Lu8nL8, sopto noLe 39, 9-31.
38
lJ. aL 9.
39
lJ. aL 13, 16.
2012] 19 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
lrlLsche, Armln von 8ogdandy, 8ardo lassbender, CunLer 1eubner, MaLLlas kumm, nlco
krlsch and many more
60
dlscuss whlch prlnclples and rlghLs have galned consLlLuLlonal
sLaLus ln greaL deLall. AlLhough SLefan kadelbach and 1homas klelnleln are of course
correcL ln sLaLlng LhaL wlLh only a lawyer's Lools lL ls dlfflculL Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhe
debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm ls a predomlnanLly Cerman debaLe,
61
lL also rlngs Lrue
LhaL Lhere are cerLaln favorable hlsLorlcal, educaLlonal and lnsLlLuLlonal condlLlons for Lhe
appeal Lo Cerman lnLernaLlonal lawyers ln parLlcular.

lL can be argued LhaL Cermany's recenL hlsLory of Lhe 1hlrd 8elch, comblned wlLh a
posslble collecLlve feellng of gullL, has proved Lo be ferLlle ground for vlewlng lLs own posL-
1943 consLlLuLlon as an lnsLrumenL wlLh heallng properLles.
62
lurLher, lL has been sLaLed
LhaL Lhls has lefL Cermans wlLh confllcLlng feellngs ln regard Lo Lhelr naLlonal herlLage.
63

Such could be Lhe reason why Cerman lawyers and pollLlclans arguably prefer Lo lnvoke
Lhe lnLeresLs of Lhe global legal communlLy, as Lhe advocaLe of unlversal legal prlnclples,
raLher Lhan Lhelr own naLlonal lnLeresLs.
64
Aslde from Lhe hlsLorlcal reasons, Lhere are also
reasons enLrenched ln Lhe Cerman legal educaLlonal sysLem, whlch furLher a llnk beLween
lnLernaLlonal and consLlLuLlonal law. 1radlLlonally, professors of lnLernaLlonal law ln
Cermany wlll also hold a chalr for consLlLuLlonal law and wlll be expecLed Lo Leach and
publlsh ln boLh areas of law. A cross-ferLlllzaLlon of Lhe Lwo dlsclpllnes ls Lherefore very
llkely. 1hese professors wlll lnLroduce ldeas grounded ln such cross-ferLlllzaLlon lnLo Lhelr
Leachlngs and supervlslons, whlch conLlnues Lhe cycle for Lhe nexL generaLlon of scholars.
Such cross-ferLlllzaLlon has been lnsLlLuLlonallzed Lhrough Lhe esLabllshmenL of research
cenLers and Lhe elecLlon of lnLernaLlonal law scholars Lo [udges, parLlcularly aL Lhe lederal
ConsLlLuLlonal CourL (8ooJesvetfossooqsqetlcb).
63



60
A brlef look aL Lhe Councll of Lhe Cerman SocleLy of lnLernaLlonal Law (ueuLsche CesellschafL fur
lnLernaLlonales 8echL) shows a large number of names Laklng parL ln Lhe debaLe on global consLlLuLlonallsm,
avallable aL: hLLp://www.dgflr.de/socleLy/sLrucLure/ (lasL accessed 23 uecember 2011).
61
SLefan kadelbach & 1homas klelnleln, lotetootloool low - o coostltotloo fot MookloJ? Ao Attempt ot o ke-
opptolsol wltb oo Aoolysls of coostltotloool ltloclples, 30 CL8MAn ?LA88CCk Cl ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 304 (2007),
62
1he lssue of collecLlve gullL and vetqooqeobeltsbewoltlqooq ls much debaLed ln Cerman llLeraLure, see, mosL
recenLly, 8L8nPA8u SCPLlnk, CulL1 A8Cu1 1PL AS1 (2010).
63
!ullane kokoLL, kepott oo Cetmooy lo 1PL Lu8CLAn CCu81 Anu nA1lCnAL CCu81S - uCC18lnL Anu !u8lS8uuLnCL:
LLCAL CPAnCL ln l1S SCClAL CCn1Lx1 77, 126 (Anne-Marle SlaughLer et ol. (eds.), 1998).
64
Armln von 8ogdandy, coostltotlooollsm lo lotetootloool low. commeot oo o ltoposol ftom Cetmooy, 47
PA8vA8u ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW !Cu8nAL 223-242 (2006).
63
Andreas L. aulus, for example, was elecLed as !udge ln Lhe 8ooJesvetfossooqsqetlcbt ln 2010. Pls work on
consLlLuLlonallsm lncludes Anu8LAS L. AuLuS, ulL ln1L8nA1lCnALL CLMLlnSCPAl1 lM vCLkL88LCP1 (1PL ln1L8nA1lCnAL
CCMMunl1? ln ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW) (2001), Andreas L. aulus, 1be lotetootloool leqol 5ystem os o coostltotloo, lo
8uLlnC 1PL WC8Lu? CCnS1l1u1lCnALlSM, ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW, Anu CLC8AL CCvL8nAnCL 69-109 (!effrey L. uunoff & !oel .
1rachLman eds., 2009).
[vol. 13 no. 01 20 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
1hese scholars have shaped Lhe debaLe Lo daLe ln a way LhaL mlmlcs Lhe consLlLuLlonal
precepLs, aL Lhe very leasL Lhe consLlLuLlonal culLure, predomlnanL ln Cermany. AlLhough
Lhe ldeas of Lhese emlnenL scholars are dlverse, mulLlfarlous, and aL some Llmes
conLradlcLory, Lhe conLemporary undersLandlng of global consLlLuLlonallsm ls largely
focused on flve key Lhemes of consLlLuLlonallsm: Lhe llmlLaLlon of power, Lhe
lnsLlLuLlonallzaLlon of power, soclal ldeallsm, sLandardlzaLlon, and Lhe proLecLlon of
lndlvldual rlghLs.
66
1he compulslon Lo mlmlc Cerman consLlLuLlonallsm has led Lo an
excluslon of oLher, perhaps more flexlble, ldeas of consLlLuLlonallsm. 1o daLe, Lhere are
very few conLrlbuLlons Lo Lhe debaLe by scholars from Lhe global souLh or Lhe group of
scholars now assoclaLed wlLh Lhe acronym 1WAlL. 1here are a few engagemenLs wlLh
consLlLuLlonallsm by scholars from crlLlcal legal sLudles, buL lL ls falr Lo say LhaL Lhose
scholars who have a commlLmenL Lo a llberal LradlLlon have prlmarlly led Lhe debaLe. And
wlLhln LhaL LradlLlon Lhere has been a consLanL dosage of consLlLuLlonallsm undersLood as
a coherenL lnLernaLlonal legal sysLem, whlch requlres common prlnclples, rlghLs and
morals.

8aLher Lhan belng abusers" of Lhe drug, Lhese scholars malnLaln a consLanL, careful
dosage. 1hey are users, noL abusers. lor an overdose, say an lnsLlLuLlonallzed federal
consLlLuLlonal sysLem, ls very much frowned upon. 1he problem wlLh Lhls consLanL hlgh ls
LhaL lL causes reallLy Lo be dlsLorLed. 1he hegemonlc poLenLlal of Lhe llberal
consLlLuLlonallsm rheLorlc ls ouL of slghL for Lhe sedaLed.

WhaL ls Lhe anLldoLe Lhen Lo Lhls addlcLlon? l suggesL lL lles ln Lhe embrace of
lndeLermlnacy on Lhe one hand and Lhe Laklng serlously of prlvaLe law concepLlons and
meLhodologles on Lhe oLher. Applled Lo Lhls lssue, embraclng lndeLermlnacy means
embraclng global consLlLuLlonallsm as an ongolng process. AlLhough Lhls may seem less
comforLlng Lhan a seL of rules enshrlned ln a glven hlerarchy, Lhere may neverLheless be
Lhe posslblllLy of Laklng comforL ln ones own dlscomforL. lmporLanLly, Lhe dlscomforL does
noL polnL Lowards a sLrucLural deflclency of lnLernaLlonal law, lL ls merely an lndlcaLor of
Lhe appeal for order. ln Lhe Lpllogue Lo Lhe relssue of ltom Apoloqy to utoplo, MarLLl
koskennleml alms Lo save lndeLermlnacy from dlsrepuLe by sLaLlng LhaL lndeLermlnacy ls
nelLher a scandal nor abouL deflclency, lL ls lndeed an absoluLely cenLral aspecL of
lnLernaLlonal law's accepLablllLy."
67
Pe explalns LhaL lL ls necessary Lo recognlze
lndeLermlnacy as a mechanlsm for accommodaLlng noL only for Lhe dlfferenL, and ofLen
confllcLlng, purposes of legal rules buL also Lo accommodaLe for change. 8ules musL sLand
Lhe LesL of Llme and for Lhls, Lhey musL be lndeLermlnaLe - aL leasL Lo a cerLaln exLenL.
1hus, alLhough lL may be posslble Lo order Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal sphere ln hlerarchles and
Lo deslgn a global consLlLuLlon, Lhls ls only one posslble lnLerpreLaLlon. As soon as one
aLLempLs Lo deflne Lhe lndeLermlnaLe, one lnevlLably excludes all oLher poLenLlal

66
lor a closer analysls of Lhese flve key Lhemes, see SCPWC8LL, sopto noLe 9, parLlcularly ChapLer 2.
67
kCSkLnnlLMl, sopto noLe 6, aL 391.
2012] 21 Clobal ConsLlLuLlonallsm & ubllc lnLernaLlonal Lawyers
lnLerpreLaLlons. l belleve LhaL, from Lhls polnL of vlew, lL should be posslble Lo Lake comforL
ln Lhe dlscomforL of lndeLermlnacy of global consLlLuLlonallsm. Whlle Lhere are of course
momenLs of sLasls, global consLlLuLlonallsm should be regarded as a shlfLlng debaLe. 1here
wlll Lherefore noL be room for a global consLlLuLlon," lnsLead Lhe lsm" of global
consLlLuLlonallsm should be embraced. Clobal consLlLuLlonallsm should Lhus be undersLood
as an on-golng process, one wlLh Lhe poLenLlal Lo conLlnually self-correcL.
68
lL appears LhaL
Lhls can only Lake place lf Lhe conLrlbuLors Lo Lhe debaLe aLLempL Lo unlearn" LhaL whlch
Lhey have learned from Lhelr domesLlc consLlLuLlonal sysLems abouL consLlLuLlonallsm.
1hey need Lo break Lhe hablL.

1he flnal polnL relaLes Lo Lhe lncreaslng slgnlflcance of prlvaLe law ln publlc lnLernaLlonal
law and Lhe relucLance of lnLernaLlonal lawyers Lo Lake Lhls serlously. WheLher ln Lhe form
of prlvaLe mlllLary companles as menLloned above, human rlghLs and buslness, or of
bllaLeral lnvesLmenL LreaLles, prlvaLe law ls a growlng parL of lnLernaLlonal law. ln
conLemporary lnLernaLlonal law scholarshlp, prlvaLe law has however been demonlzed or
has been equaLed wlLh exLra-legal processes. lL ls Lherefore regarded as a serlous and
urgenL maLLer Lo make prlvaLe mlllLary companles and prlvaLe corporaLlons accounLable ln
a publlc law framework. Such subsumlng under publlc law causes a bllnd falLh ln Lhe publlc
LhaL goes hand ln hand wlLh a fear of Lhe prlvaLe. 1aklng prlvaLe law concepLlons serlously,
such as Lhe varled posslblllLles for remedles, Lhe (legal) equallLy of Lhe parLles and
conLracLual freedom could Lherefore provlde parL of an anLldoLe Lo Lhe addlcLlon of
sysLemlzlng LhaL has Laken place wlLhln Lhe global consLlLuLlonal debaLe.


E< 4.5%&6($.5

1he above argumenL Lakes a sLep back from Lhe conLemporary debaLe on global
consLlLuLlonallsm LhaL revolves around suggesLlons for whaL ls or should be Lhe global
consLlLuLlon, Lo ldenLlfy whaL lL ls LhaL draws advocaLes of global consLlLuLlonallsm Lo Lhe
fleld. undersLandlng Lhe appeal and Lhe moLlvaLlon behlnd suggesLlons for global
consLlLuLlonallsm asslsLs ln analyzlng Lhe concerns of lnLernaLlonal lawyers as regards Lhelr
fleld aL large. 1he ldea of global consLlLuLlonallsm embodles lmporLanL - Lhough noL
exlsLenLlal - concerns of publlc lnLernaLlonal lawyers. lL ls noL only Lhe concern abouL
lnLernaLlonal law LhaL ls of lnLeresL however, lmporLanLly, by looklng aL global
consLlLuLlonallsm as a fleld of enqulry concelved by lndlvldual auLhors, we can also geL a
grlp on Lhe welghL Lo be aLLrlbuLed Lo Lhe noLlon of global consLlLuLlonallsm lLself. laln
Scobble sLaLes LhaL Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon of auLhorlal predlsposlLlons ls slmply cruclal Lo
evaluaLlng Lhe welghL Lo be glven Lo an argumenL", and LhaL lL can lndeed be declslve ln

68
Llsewhere l Lerm Lhls organlc global consLlLuLlonallsm," SCPWC8LL, sopto noLe 9, parLlcularly ChapLer 4,
ChrlsLlne L. !. Schwbel, Otqoolc Clobol coostltotlooollsm, 23 L!lL 329-333 (2010).
[vol. 13 no. 01 22 Cer ma n L a w ! our na l
law."
69
ln order Lo undersLand and assess vlslons of global consLlLuLlonallsm, lL ls Lherefore
a useful paLh of enqulry Lo examlne Lhe counLry LhaL Lhe auLhor comes from, Lhe auLhor's
legal educaLlon, Lhe auLhor's sex, age, eLhnlc background, rellglon, and oLher culLural
characLerlsLlcs. naLurally, Lhere ls also Lhe lssue of Lhe parLlal teoJet. ?eL, lL ls lllumlnaLlng
ln Lerms of Lhe global consLlLuLlonal debaLe LhaL Lhe ma[orlLy of Lhe auLhors (wlLh
slgnlflcanL excepLlons) are Cerman, or have aL leasL had a Cerman legal educaLlon, regard
Lhemselves as general lnLernaLlonal lawyers, are male, whlLe, and have mosL llkely had a
ChrlsLlan (proLesLanL) upbrlnglng. 1hls noL only helps lnLerpreL Lhelr absLracLlons ln a more
concreLe and conLexLual manner, lL also asslsLs ln maklng a legal assessmenL. MosL
lmporLanLly for lnLernaLlonal law: can Lhese lndlvlduals really speak auLhorlLaLlvely abouL a
supposedly qlobol and oeottol phenomenon?

WlLhln Lhe framework of Lhls paper lL has only been posslble Lo Louch on Lhe crlLlque of
conLemporary vlslons of global consLlLuLlonallsm. Powever, global consLlLuLlonallsm should
be vlewed as one of a number of compeLlng ldeas perLalnlng Lo a framework for an
lnLernaLlonal legal order, oLhers belng global admlnlsLraLlve law, an lnLernaLlonal otJte
pobllc, or global governance.
70
Some of Lhe argumenLs Lherefore also apply Lo Lhese
compeLlng concepLs lnsofar as Lhey Loo foreground llberal democraLlc pollLlcal models. lL
has hopefully become clear LhaL Lhe prevalenL concerns regardlng a loss of conLrol of
lnLernaLlonal lawyers only sLand fasL lf one assumes LhaL lnLernaLlonal law ls predlcaLed on
an excluslvely llberal-democraLlc pollLlcal model. 1he recognlLlon LhaL global
consLlLuLlonallsm could be lnfluenced by oLher pollLlcal models, some LhaL do noL (or
would noL) necessarlly mlmlc Lhe domesLlc consLlLuLlonal orders of Lhe developed world,
allows for a creaLlvlLy LhaL could occaslon progresslve soclal change. Clobal
consLlLuLlonallsm, once deLached from Lhese concerns abouL fragmenLaLlon and Lhe
lnfluence of law on socleLy, mlghL be an effecLlve Lool for soclal change ln LhaL lL could
provlde Lhe space for dlscusslng global concerns wlLh acLors LhaL may have been prevlously
excluded and whose lnLeresLs may have prevlously noL been heard.





69
laln Scobble, wlckeJ netesles ot leqltlmote letspectlves? 1beoty ooJ lotetootloool low ln ln1L8nA1lCnAL LAW 39
(Malcolm u. Lvans 3
rd
ed., 2010).
70
5ee nell Walker, who wrlLes abouL Lhe dlsorder of orders ln 8eyooJ boooJoty Jlspotes ooJ boslc qtlJs. Mopploq
tbe qlobol JlsotJet of ootmotlve otJets, 6 ln1L8nA1lCnAL !Cu8nAL Cl CCnS1l1u1lCnAL LAW 373-396 (2008).