Table Of ContentIus Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 68
Richard Albert · Bertil Emrah Oder
Editors
An Unamendable
Constitution?
Unamendability in Constitutional
Democracies
Ius Gentium: Comparative
Perspectives on Law and Justice
Volume 68
Series editors
Mortimer Sellers, University of Baltimore
James Maxeiner, University of Baltimore
Board of Editors
Myroslava Antonovych, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Nadia de Araújo, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Jasna Bakšic-Muftic, University of Sarajevo
David L. Carey Miller, University of Aberdeen
Loussia P. Musse Félix, University of Brasilia
Emanuel Gross, University of Haifa
James E. Hickey Jr., Hofstra University
Jan Klabbers, University of Helsinki
Cláudia Lima Marques, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Aniceto Masferrer, University of Valencia
Eric Millard, West Paris University
Gabriël A. Moens, Curtin University
Raul C. Pangalangan, University of the Philippines
Ricardo Leite Pinto, Lusíada University of Lisbon
Mizanur Rahman, University of Dhaka
Keita Sato, Chuo University
Poonam Saxena, University of Delhi
Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics
Eduard Somers, University of Ghent
Xinqiang Sun, Shandong University
Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Warsaw University
Jaap de Zwaan, Erasmus University Rotterdam
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7888
Richard Albert Bertil Emrah Oder
(cid:129)
Editors
An Unamendable
Constitution?
Unamendability in Constitutional
Democracies
123
Editors
Richard Albert Bertil EmrahOder
Schoolof Law LawSchool
TheUniversity of Texasat Austin KoçUniversity
Austin, TX,USA Sarıyer, Istanbul,Turkey
ISSN 1534-6781 ISSN 2214-9902 (electronic)
Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives onLawandJustice
ISBN978-3-319-95140-9 ISBN978-3-319-95141-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95141-6
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018946670
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Acknowledgements
On a splendid summer day in June 2015, 15 scholars convened in Istanbul for a
conference on one of the most provocative subjects in modern public law:
unamendableconstitutionalprovisions.Thepaperspresentedattheconferencehave
since been revised and refined into the fascinating chapters in this volume.
WegatheredonthepicturesquecampusofKoçUniversityLawSchool,ourhost
forthisgatheringinpartnershipwithBostonCollegeLawSchool.Weorganizedthis
program under the auspices of the International Society of Public Law, at the time
only 1-year old buttoday theleadinglearned society for the study of public law.
We thank the staff at Koç University Law School for their contributions to the
success of the conference and this volume. We are particularly grateful to Esra
Özcanand Zeynep Koçerfor theirmasterful organizational work,theirenthusiasm
for theconference program,andalso for their generosity of spirit to all conference
participants.
We thank our friends at Springer for publishing our ideas in their series on
Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. We thank series
editorsMortimerSellersandJamesMaxeinerfortheirexcitementaboutourproject,
and we express our gratitude to Diana Nijenhuijzen, Neil Olivier, Manjula
Saravanan, and Corina van der Giessen for their advice in shepherding our
manuscript to publication.
Finally, we exclaim our profound appreciation for the contributors to this
volume.Theyhavebeenmodelcolleaguesfromtheverybeginningofthisproject.
They made our conference a resounding success with their careful advance
preparation for our gathering, with their sustained and constructive engagement
during the conference and since then in the process of editing and revising their
chapters,andalsowiththeirfriendlinesstousandeachother.Wecanstatewithno
uncertainty that their chapters will enrich the study of a subject that is extraordi-
narily important for understanding the promise and limits of constitutionalism.
Richard Albert
Bertil Emrah Oder
v
Contents
The Forms of Unamendability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Richard Albert and Bertil Emrah Oder
Part I The Legitimacy and Limits of Unamendability
Necrocracy or Democracy? Assessing Objections to Constitutional
Unamendability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Yaniv Roznai
A Constitution for Eternity: An Economic Theory of Explicit
Unamendability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Konstantinos Pilpilidis
Conventions of Unamendability: Covert Constitutional
Unamendability in (Two) Politically Enforced Constitutions . . . . . . . . . 89
Gert Jan Geertjes and Jerfi Uzman
Credible Commitment or Paternalism? The Case
of Unamendability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Stephan Michel and Ignacio N. Cofone
Part II Unamendability Around the World
Constitutional Falsehoods: The Fourth Judges Case
and the Basic Structure Doctrine in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chintan Chandrachud
Unamendability in Israel: A Critical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Mazen Masri
Eternal Provisions in the Constitution of Bangladesh:
A Constitution Once and for All? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Ridwanul Hoque
vii
viii Contents
Unamendability as a Judicial Discovery? Inductive Learning
Lessons from Hungary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz
Amending the Unamendable: The Case of Article 20 of the German
Basic Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Serkan Köybaşı
DebatingUnamendability:DeadlockinTurkey’sConstitution-Making
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Oya Yegen
The Unamendability of Amendable Clauses: The Case of the Turkish
Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Tarik Olcay
Brazil in the Context of the Debate Over Unamendability in Latin
America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Juliano Zaiden Benvindo
Unamendable Constitutional Provisions and the European Common
Constitutional Heritage: A Comparison Among Three Waves of
Constitutionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Valentina Rita Scotti
Contributors
Richard Albert The University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX, USA
Juliano Zaiden Benvindo University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
Chintan Chandrachud Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, London, UK
Ignacio N. Cofone McGill University Faculty of Law, Montreal, Canada
Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Center for Social
Sciences, Institute of Legal Studies, Budapest, Hungary
Gert Jan Geertjes Leiden University Law School, Leiden, The Netherlands
Ridwanul Hoque University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Serkan Köybaşı Law Faculty, Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Mazen Masri The City Law School, City, University of London, London, UK
Stephan Michel Institute of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
Bertil Emrah Oder Koç University Law School, Istanbul, Turkey
Tarik Olcay School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Konstantinos Pilpilidis Institute of Lawand Economics,University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
YanivRoznai RadzynerSchoolofLaw,InterdisciplinaryCenter(IDC),Herzliya,
Israel
Valentina Rita Scotti Department of Political Science, LUISS University of
Rome, Rome, Italy
Jerfi Uzman Leiden University Law School, Leiden, The Netherlands
Oya Yegen Sabancı Unversity, Istanbul, Turkey
ix
The Forms of Unamendability
Richard Albert and Bertil Emrah Oder
Abstract In this introductory chapter to our edited volume on “An Unamendable
Constitution?UnamendabilityinConstitutionalStates,”weexploreoneofthemost
fascinating—and controversial—developments in constitutional design in the last
half-century: the rise of unamendability. Whether formal or informal, unamend-
ability serves many purposes, and we illustrate each of them with reference to
constitutions around the world. We discuss the substantive, procedural and tem-
poral limitations on constitutional amendment, we highlight the foundational
questions in modern constitutionalism raised by unamendability, and we situate
each of the thirteen chapters comprising the volume within the literature on con-
stitutional change. Our objective in this volume is to theorize the subject of una-
mendability and to probe deeply the uses and misuses of unamendability in
constitutional design.
ThelatepoliticalscientistJohnBurgessdescribedtheamendingclauseas“themost
important part of a constitution.”1 Formal amendment rules indeed serve funda-
mental functions in a constitutional democracy, notably the expression of values
that define a community constituted under an authoritative charter.2 Formal
amendment rules also provide a roadmap for amending actors to alter the consti-
tution,3 they distinguish constitutional from ordinary law,4 and they reflect the
democraticvaluesofparticipation,deliberation,andownership.5Attheirbest,they
1Burgess(1893),p.137.
2Albert(2013),pp.225,247–257.
3DixonandHolden(2012),p.195.
4Sajó(1999),pp.39–40.
5RaschandCongleton(2006),pp.319,326,DenningandVile(2002),p.247,279.
R.Albert(&)
TheUniversityofTexasSchoolofLaw,Austin,TX,USA
e-mail:[email protected]
B.E.Oder
KoçUniversityLawSchool,Istanbul,Turkey
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018 1
R.AlbertandB.E.Oder(eds.),AnUnamendableConstitution?
IusGentium:ComparativePerspectivesonLawandJustice68,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95141-6_1
