The distinction between strong and weak judicial review occupies a privileged place in comparative constitutional law. This article argues that it is necessary to generate a new typology that includes two other increasingly influential models. The two ‘new’ models can be identified as ‘strong basic structure review’ and ‘weak basic structure review’. The former, present in some common law countries such as India and Belize, not only provides judges with the ability to strike down legislation that is inconsistent with a particular constitutional provision, but also constitutional amendments incompatible with the principles on which the constitution rests. The latter model, weak basic structure review, currently present in some Latin American countries, also provides judges with the power to strike down ordinary and constitution-amending legislation, but gives ‘the people’, acting through a constituent assembly, the final word on the validity of any form of positive law. Finally, the article considers the possibility of the development of a fifth model in which even the constituent people would be bound by certain principles to be identified and enforced by judges.

This article analyses how, and under what conditions, a systemically-pluralist structure of international law provides a springboard for global democratization. I argue that contestation and deliberation – core values of democracy – can and do arise within systemic pluralism. Specifically, I contend that institutional heterarchy between legal orders and forum shopping by different actors provide a means to engender these democratic values. I maintain that democratization can be sought on both horizontal and vertical planes: the former being the sphere of multilateral negotiations; the latter being governance which links individuals directly to sites of public power. In making this argument, I analyse recent developments within global intellectual property law, establishing and treating the multiple jurisdictions in this issue-space as an instantiation of systemic pluralism. This article thus provides a normative strategy for ongoing democratization of international law. Systemic pluralism must still prove its merits in terms of stability, the rule of law, and other values. However, I provide a method to advance transnational democracy that takes seriously empirical realities and competing normative visions.

Against recent contributions to the debate about the constituent power of the people, the article proposes to reorient the debate by analytically distinguishing three dominant arenas of political struggle – democratic, social and national – in which the vocabulary of ‘the people’ and its constituent power is invoked. The invocation of the ‘will of the people’ and its constituent power in these arenas is associated with different assumptions, risks and implicit ideational trade-offs that must be laid bare. A contextual approach to constituent power counsels caution in dignifying pro-democratic constitutional transformations with the name of ‘the people’. It invites those who theorize constituent power with social struggles in mind to rebalance their attention to constituent power – and devote more attention to imaginaries and strategies that minimize moral hazards implicit in the vocabulary of peoplehood and to maximize the likelihood of the new order’s survival. Finally, a contextual approach rejects the role for constituent power in national struggles, arguing that constitutional theory is incapable of arbitrating between competing assertions of popular sovereignty. In the final part of the paper, I defend the contextual approach against the theoretical interventions currently on offer, and gesture towards its potential in crafting a provincialized constitutional theory.

We can observe some developments that indicate a further strengthening of human rights and the rule of law even after 2001. These developments are puzzling as they occurred despite largely unfavourable scope conditions. This article offers an account of these developments that focuses on dynamics endogenous to the law. These internal dynamics provide a causal mechanism that sets in once a certain threshold of legalization has been reached. We employ the Hartian notion of secondary rules which we think is an especially helpful conceptual tool to analyse the endogenous dynamics of legal systems. To the extent that law is programmed towards consistency, secondary rules become necessary in an environment of rapidly increasing legal density to govern the complexity resulting from this proliferation of norms. Upholding consistency is necessary to maintain the autonomy of law in a Luhmannian sense and the ‘morality’ of the legal system in a Fullerian sense. Our goal is to show this and at the same move beyond an argument of system or normative functionality by identifying causal mechanisms that can explain the law’s built-in drive towards secondary rules, and that are in accordance with broader social science theory. We use some insights from cognitive psychology to develop these causal mechanisms further. While testing these causal mechanisms would be beyond the scope of this paper, we hope to provide the conceptual tools for future empirical research on the dynamics of secondary rule-making and offer some empirical illustrations to demonstrate how dissonance reduction operates in practice.