William Stamps Farish Professor of Law, Te University of Texas at Austin School of Law
robert schütze
Professor of European and Global Law, Durham University and College of Europe
Comparative constitutional law has a long and distinguished history in intellectual thought and in the construction of public law. As political actors and the people who create or modify their constitutional orders, they ofen wish to learn from the experience and learning of others. Tis cross-fertilization and mutual interaction has only accelerated with the onset of globalization, which has transformed the world into an interconnected web that facilitates dialogue and linkages across international and regional structures. Oxford Comparative Constitutionalism seeks to publish scholarship of the highest quality in constitutional law that deepens our knowledge of local, national, regional, and global phenomena through the lens of comparative public law.
Advisory Board
Denis Baranger, Professor of Public Law, Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas
Wen-Chen Chang, Professor of Law, National Taiwan University
Roberto Gargarella, Professor of Law, Universidad Torcuato di Tella
Vicki C. Jackson, Turgood Marshall Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School
Christoph Möllers, Professor of Public Law and Jurisprudence, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Cheryl Saunders A.O., Laureate Professor Emeritus, Melbourne Law School
Eternity Clauses in Democratic Constitutionalism
SILVIA SUTEU Lecturer in Public Law, University College London Faculty of Laws
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020948225
ISBN 978–0–19–885886–7
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858867.001.0001
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To my parents
Acknowledgments
Tis book would not have been possible without the support of mentors, colleagues, and friends. At Edinburgh Law School, I was privileged to beneft from the guidance of my two PhD supervisors, Stephen Tierney and Neil Walker. Teir belief in this research project sustained me through the darker times inevitable in any lengthy writing process. Tey showed me unfailing trust, patience, and respect, all while maintaining a sense of humour about it all, for which I will always be thankful. Tey are role models both as intellectuals and as individuals and I feel very fortunate to have benefted from their mentorship during my academic journey. My dissertation examiners, Martin Loughlin and Elisenda Casañas Adam, engaged with this research robustly and helped improve it signifcantly. Tey have remained sources of inspiration and support ever since.
Te academic environment at Edinburgh Law School provided the stimulating context in which I developed a signifcant portion of this work. Te Constitutional Law Discussion Group and Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law ofered the perfect mix of academic rigour and friendly atmosphere in which to test my thinking, engage with peers, and truly feel part of a research community. Te Legal Teory Research Group also aforded me opportunities to pursue research interests beyond the mainstreams of constitutional theory. Members of all these clusters whose insights have helped me refne my ideas include: Tom Gerald Daly, Martin Kelly, Cormac Mac Amhlaigh, Euan MacDonald, Claudio Michelon, and Asanga Welikala. Alongside them, Christine Bell has provided generous feedback on my writing and support for my academic pursuits during and afer my time in Edinburgh. Hers remains a model of engaged scholarship.
Since joining UCL’s Faculty of Laws in 2016, I was fortunate to beneft from an intellectual home like no other. I am grateful for the lively research environment at UCL, as well as for the friendships I am lucky to have created here. Members of the Public Law Group in particular have provided useful feedback on various strands of my research and deeply enriching conversations, including: Rodney Austin, Paul Burgess, Joe Crampin, Conor Crummey, Aleisha Ebrahimi, Oliver Gerstenberg, Carlos Herrera-Martin, Myriam Hunter-Henin, Jef King, Daniella Lock, Ronan McCrea, Colm O’Cinneide, Rick Rawlings, Natalie Sedacca, and Eugenio Velasco Ibarra. Two workshops organized with faculty and university support, one on exclusionary constitutionalism in 2018 and one on constitutional identity in 2019, were fantastic opportunities for focused discussion around the trickier arguments in the book. Huge thanks are due to all the participants in both events. Presenting my research as part of our faculty staf seminars further challenged my thinking in
a collegial atmosphere. I am indebted to Piet Eeckhout, Richard Moorhead, and Eloise Scotford for making that possible.
Parts of this research were presented at conferences and workshops at institutions throughout the world. Tese include: the University of Aberdeen, the University of Bristol, Charles University in Prague, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the University of Copenhagen, the Devolution Club in London, the European University Institute in Florence, the University of Glasgow, the University of Hong Kong, the International IDEA Constitution Building Programme in Te Hague, the International Institute for the Sociology of Law in Oñati, the London School of Economics and Political Science, the University of Oxford, New York University, Queen’s University Belfast, SungKyunKwan University in Seoul, the University of Trento, and the University of Victoria in Canada. I am grateful to the discussants and participants in all these for their generous engagement with my work. I am thankful also to my colleagues in the Central and Eastern European chapter of the International Society of Public Law and in the UK Constitutional Law Association for stimulating conversations that, directly or indirectly, have helped enrich the ideas in this book.
Richard Albert and Robert Schütze were wonderful stewards of this book as part of Oxford University Press’s Comparative Constitutionalism series, believing in the project throughout its various written iterations. Jamie Berezin and Imogen Hill ensured the project stayed on track. Te anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments as well as reassurance about the book’s distinctive contribution. I am grateful to them all for helping to get this project over the fnishing line. Finally, I owe a great debt of gratitude to friends and family who have stood by me, allowed me to complain (but not too much), and always found a word of reassurance to spare. Kasia Chalaczkiewicz-Ladna, Koto Eristavi, Gigi Jokubauskaite, and Alex Latham-Gambi made our PhD days feel like a fun adventure. I hope we will have many more chances to share each other’s joyous occasions, whether in the city of shifing light and changing skies or on the sunny hills of Emilia-Romagna. At UCL Laws, Niamh Connolly, Mark Dsouza, Ugljesa Grusic, Magda Raczynska, Daniela Simone, and Kevin Toh have been partners in crime and caring friends. Ana Cannilla, Ashleigh Keall, and Maria Lee have been true feminist allies. Mara Malagodi and Jenna Sapiano have cheered me on and shared their wise counsel from diferent corners of the world—they embody the power of scholarly sisterhood. Casiana Ionita has provided constant encouragement and expert advice, not to mention being the best plant mom. Mihai Evoiu lent his designer’s eye and feline support system during moments of need. Anica and Victor Titiu welcomed me unreservedly and ofered respite, not to mention a fair bit of sustenance. My partner, Bogdan Titiu, has been my champion throughout. His love, patience, and gentleness sustained me. Our laughs together kept me sane. Finally, my parents, Trandafra and Ioan, and my brother Iuliu have been my rock. Tey have never once doubted I could achieve whatever I set my mind to and so much more. I hope this book makes them proud.
2.2
II. E TERNITY CLAUSES IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION: CONSTITUTIONAL IDENTITIES, BASIC STRUCTURES, AND MINIMUM CORES
3. Eternity and Expressive Values:
3.2
3.3
4. Eternity as Judicially Created Doctrine: Implicit Unamendability as the Embodiment of the Constitution’s Basic Structure or Minimum Core
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
III. ETERNITY CLAUSES IN CONTEMPORARY CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESSES: TRANSNATIONAL FORCES, POPULAR PARTICIPATION, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL
5. Eternity in a Global Context: Unamendability, Internationalized Constitution-Making, and Transnational Values
5.1 Internationalized constitution-making and unamendability
norm difusion and the globalization of constitution-making
5.2 Constitutional adjudication of unamendability in a transnational context
Supranational illegality of constitutional amendments: unamendability review against a transnational referent
Unamendability in international adjudication: a supranational unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine?
5.3 Conclusion
6. Eternity Faces ‘the People’: Unamendability and Participatory Constitutional Change
6.1
6.2 Case studies: unamendability and participation in
6.3 Conclusion
7. Relinquishing Eternity: Amending Unamendability Out of the
7.1
7.2 Repealing eternity clauses as by defnition
7.3 Reversing judicial doctrines of unamendability
7.4 Eternity clauses as a tool encouraging deliberation
7.5
Table of Cases
UNITED KINGDOM
R (SG) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 187–88
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, Application No. 11157/04, 4 July 2013 .
.186–87
Baka v. Hungary, Application No. 20261/12, Grand Chamber Judgment, 23 June 2016 199, 200–2
Cases relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium[1968] ECHR 1474/62, 1 EHRR 252 (1968) .
Dahlab v. Switzerland, Application No. 42393/98, 15 February 2001
71–72
42
Kiss v. Hungary, Application No. 38832/06, 20 May 2010 186–87
Klass v. Germany, Application No. 5029/71, 6 September 1978 186–87
Mathieu-Mohin v. Belgium [1987] ECHR 9267/81, 10 EHRR (1988)
Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 41939/07, 9 June 2016
Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey
71–72
69
Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et al., Grand Chamber Judgment, 3 February 2003 40, 42
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia, Applications Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009
190
Şahin v. Turkey, Application no. 44774/98, Grand Chamber Judgment, 10 November 2005 148–49
United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 19392/92, 30 January 1998
EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Case C-441/14 Dansk Industri v. Rasmussen, 19 April 2016 119–20
Case C-399/09 Landtová v. Česká správa socialního zabezpečení, 22 June 2011…… 119–20
Case C-105/14 Taricco & others, 8 September 2015
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLE’S RIGHTS
Lawyers for Human Rights v. Swaziland ACHPR 251/02, 11 May 2005
Legal Resources Foundation v. Zambia ACHPR 211/98, 7 May 2001
Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains (MIDH) v. Côte d’Ivoire Comm. No. 246/02 ACHPR 88, 29 July 2008
CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE
Caso de Conficto entre Poderes en Nicaragua, Sentencia, 29 March 2005
INTER- AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am.
Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 154, 26 September 2006 193–94
Barrios Altos v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 75, 14 March 2011 (Merits) 83–84
Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 220, 26 November 2010 . . . . .193–94
Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 158, 24 November 2006 193–94
Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 238, 29 November 2011
ARGENTINA
Supreme Court, Simón, Julio Héctor y otros s/privación ilegítima de la libertad, Causa No. 17.768, 14 June 2005 . .
BANGLADESH
Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui v. Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 9989 of 2014 (HCD), 5 May 2016 .
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh, 1989, 18 CLC (AD) .
.193–94
83–84
.154–55
138, 154–55
Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd v. Bangladesh (2006) BLT (Special) (HCD) 1, 29 August 2005 139
BverfGE 1, 14 (‘Southwest State’) (1951), 23 October 1951 26
BVerfGE 2, 1 (‘Socialist Reich Party’) (1952)
BVerfGE 5, 85 (‘Communist Party’) (1956)
37
37
BVerfGE 30, 1 (‘Klass’) (1970) 63, 147
BVerfGE 37, 271 (‘Solange I’), 29 May 1974 114–15, 122
BVerfGE 39, 1 (‘Abortion I’)
BVerfGE 88, 203 (‘Abortion II’)
BVerfGE 45, 187 (‘Life Imprisonment’)
108, 148–49
108
108
BVerfGE 73, 339 (‘Solange II’), 22 October 1986 114–15
BVerfGE 89, 155 (‘Maastricht’), 12 October 1993 115, 198
BVerfGE 107, 339 (‘NPD Party Ban Dismissal I’) (2003)
BVerfGE 115, 118 (‘Aerial Security Law’), 15 February 2006
HONDURAS
Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Decision of 22 April 2015 .
HUNGARY
Constitutional Court, Decision 184/2010. (X. 28.) AB 160–61
Constitutional Court, Decision 61/2011 (VII. 13.) AB
Constitutional Court, Decision 12/2013 (V. 24.) AB
Constitutional Court, Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB 121–22
INDIA
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1975 1994 SC 1918 . . . . . . . . . .
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 .
. . . . 31–33, 134–35
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 133
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 134–35
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 245
Kesavananda v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, 1992 (Supp) 2 SCC 651 134–35
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71 245
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 134–35, 241–42
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
Pravin Bhai Toghadia v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 2081
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 134–35
R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 11993 SC 1804 134–35
Sambamurthy v. State of AP, Minerva Mills, AIR 1987 SC 663
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386 .
.134–35
.134–35
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) 4 SCC 1 153, 192–93, 247
Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2113 134–35
ISRAEL
CA 6821/93 Bank Mizrahi HaMe’ouha v. Migdal Kfar Shitofui (1995), IsrSC 49 (2) 221 112–13
HCJ 4908/10 Bar-On v. Te Knesset (2010) 112–13
HCJ 6427/02 Te Movement for the Quality of Governance in Israel v. Te Knesset (2006) .
EA 1/65 Yerdor v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset (1965), IsrSC 19(3) 365 112
ITALY
Constitutional Court, Ordinanza n. 24/2017
Court, Sentenza n. 1146/1988
Court, Sentenza n. 115/2018
KENYA
High Court, Njoya and Six Others v. Attorney General and Another [2004] 1 KLR, 3 March 2004 222–23
KOSOVO
Constitutional Court, Case K038/12 Assessment of the Government’s Proposals for Amendments of the Constitution submitted by the President of the Assembly of the Republic on 12 April 2012, 15 May 2012 66
MALAYSIA
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals [2018] 1 MLJ 545 142–43, 145
Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 .
Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 2 MLJ 333 .
.142–43
.142–43
Semenyih Jaya v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561 142–43
NIGER
Constitutional Court, AVIS No. 02/ CC of 25 May 2009 . . .
PAKISTAN
75
Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324 139–40, 155 District Bar Association, Rawalpindi and Others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2015 SC 401 .
140, 145, 155
Imran Ahmed Khan v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, 2017 PLD 692 SC 140–41
Mahmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 426 139–40
Nadeem Ahmad and Others v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2010 SC 1165 .
Pakistan Lawyers Forum v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2005 SC 719 .
155
.139–40
Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafaz Dastoor v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1263 139–40
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Azanian People’s Organization (AZAPO) and Others v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1996 (4) SA 672 (CC), 25 July 1996 82–83
Certifcation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (CCT 23/96) [1996] ZACC 26; 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC); 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC), 6 September 1996 (hereafer ‘First Certifcation Judgment’) .
56, 215–16, 219
Certifcation of the Amended Text of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (CCT37/96) [1996] ZACC 24; 1997 (1) BCLR 1; 1997 (2) SA 97, 4 December 1996 216–17
Executive Council of the Western Cape Legislature and Others v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT27/95) [1995] ZACC 8; 1995 (10) BCLR 1289; 1995 (4) SA 877, 22 September 1995 218–19
Premier of Kwazulu-Natal and Others v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT36/95) [1995] ZACC 10; 1995 (12) BCLR 1561; 1996 (1) SA 769, 29 November 1995 .
S v. Makwanyane and Another (CCT3/94) [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (6) BCLR 665; 1995 (3) SA 391; [1996] 2 CHRLD 164; 1995 (2) SACR 1, 6 June 1995
.218–19
.217–18
United Democratic Movement v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (No. 2) (CCT23/02) [2002] ZACC 21; 2003 (1) SA 495; 2002 (11) BCLR 1179, 4 October 2002 219–20
ROMANIA
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 72/1995, 18 July 1995
44–45
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 40/1996, 11 April 1996 44–45
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 148/2003, 12 May 2003 157–58
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 799/2011, 23 June 2011
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 80/2014, 16 February 2014
Constitutional Court, Decizia nr. 580/2016, 20 July 2016
.157–58
. . . 28, 44–45, 110–11, 157
111, 157–58
SINGAPORE
Ravi s/o Madasamy v. Attorney-General [2017] SGHC 163
Teo Soh Lung v. Minister of Home Afairs [1989] 1 SLR(R) 461
Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 11
SLOVAKIA
Decision PL. ÚS 21/2014, 30 January 2019
SPAIN
Constitutional Tribunal, Sentencia 31/2010, 28 June 2010
Constitutional Tribunal, Sentencia 42/2014, 25 March 2014
SRI LANKA
In Re the Tirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Provincial Councils Bill (1987) 2 SLR 312
THAILAND
Court Decision 17-22/2555,13 July 2012
Court Decision 15-18/2556 of 20 November 2013
TURKEY
Constitutional Court, Case No. 1992/1 (Political Party Dissolution), Decision No.: 1993/1, 14 July 1993 38–39
Constitutional Court, Case No. 1997/ 1 (Political Party Dissolution), Decision No.: 1998/ 1, 16 January 1998
Constitutional Court, Headscarf Decision of 5 June 2008, E. 2008/16; K. 2008/116, Resmi Gazete, 22 October 2008, No. 27032
Table of Legislation
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
Afghanistan
Constitution of 2004 .
60, 63
Art 2 63–64
Art 3 63–64
Art 130
Art 149 . .
Art 149(1) .
Constitution of 1964
63–64
62–63
. 63–64
Art 2 63–64
Algeria
Constitution
Art 178
31
Art 212 72–73
Art 212(4) 42–43
Art 212(5) 62–63
Angola
Constitution
Art 236
. . . . 20, 31, 102–3
Art 236(d) 28
Art 236(e) 62–63
Argentina
Constitution
Art 75(22)
Amnesty Laws
Armenia
Constitution
83–84
83–84, 193–95
Bangladesh
Constitution
Art 7B 139, 247–48
Fifh Amendment Act 1979 21, 139
Seventh Amendment Act 1986 21, 139
Tirteenth Amendment Act 1996. . . . . . 139
Fifeenth Amendment Act 2011 139, 247–48
Sixteenth Amendment Act 2014 154–55
Bolivia
Constitution 79–80, 195–96
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Constitution
Art II.
Art 114 243–44
Art 203 183–84
Azerbaijan
Constitution
Art 158
Bahrain
Constitution
99
30
Art 120 31, 42–43
Art 120(c) .
23–24
61, 70–71
66–67, 175
Art II(2) 66–67, 68–69, 175
Art II(3) 68–69
Art V 68–69
Art X(2) . . . . . 40–41, 66–69, 175, 243–44
Electoral Law
Art 8(1) para 2 68
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘Dayton Peace Agreement’), 21 November 1995 66–67, 68–69, 69, 70, 174
Annex
Brazil
Constitution of 1988
Art 5
57, 70–71, 174
195
195
Art 60(4) 195
Art 60(4)(I) 25
Art 60(4)(IV).
Constitution of 1967
Constitution of 1891
62–63
252–53
Art 90(4) 22
Burkina Faso
Constitution
Art 165
20, 72–73
Cambodia
Constitution
Art 153 23–24
Cameroon
Constitution
Canada
Constitution
British Columbia Electoral Law
. 57–58
. 213
Ontario Electoral Law 213
Cape Verde
Constitution
Art 313
Central African Republic
Constitution
Art 35 .
102–3
East Timor
Constitution
72–73
Art 153 62–63, 243–44
Chad
Constitution 209–10
Art 227 62–63
Colombia
Constitution of 1991
Title XIII
Art 197 78
Art 375 78
Constitution of 1830
Art 164
Costa Rica
Constitution
Czech Republic
Constitution
22
79–80, 162
Art 9(2) 46–47
Art 35 45–46
Democratic Republic of Congo
Constitution
Art 220
Dominican Republic
Constitution of 1865
Art 139 22
Art 156 102–3 Art 156(1)(b))
Ecuador
Constitution of 1843
62–63
Art 110 22
Constitution of 1854 31
Egypt
Constitution Preamble .
Art 226
El Salvador
130
X
Art 131(2) . .
80–81, 252
80–81
81–82
Constitutional Process (Constitutional Commission) Decree No. 57 of 2012, Ofcial Gazette 13(98) (18 July 2012) 81–82
France
of 1958 259
105 Art 6
22–23
73 Art 89
Constitution of 1946 105
Constitution of 1875
Art 8(3) 22
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789 .
Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self- Government of Kosovo (2001).
175
Unilateral Declaration of Independence (2008) 175
Libya
Draf Constitution of 2016 57–58 Art 215 146
Madagascar Constitution Art 163
Malaysia
Mali
Mexico
Constitution of 1917
of 1824.
72–73
.142–43, 145
Constitution Art 118 20
Mauritania
Constitution Art 99
142(2)
175
Mozambique
23–24, 62–63
Constitution Art 292 102–3 Art 292(1)(d) .
Namibia
Nepal
. 72–73
Te Netherlands Constitution
213 Nicaragua
79–80, 162
192 201–2 Art 193
194
Niger Constitution
136
201–2
201–2
80–81, 251–52
75 Art 175 20, 72–73, 243–44
Norway Constitution Art 112 126
Pakistan Constitution Art 62(1)(f) 140–41 Art 239(5) 140
Art 239(6)
Portugal
Constitution of 1976 242–43
Art 288 20, 30, 31, 102–3, 242–43
Art 288(d) . . .
Constitution of 1911
. 62–63
Art 82(2) 22
Qatar
Constitution Art 146 62–63
Republic of Congo
Constitution
Art 185 185
Republic of South Africa
Constitution .
. . 205, 215–16, 217–19
Preamble 104
Art 1 217, 220
Art 39(1)(b) .
Art 39(2) .
Art 44(1) .
Russia
Constitution 202–3
Art 135(1) 40–41,
Sao Tome and Principe
Constitution
Art 154
Art 154(d) .
Senegal
Constitution
Art 103
Singapore Constitution
Slovakia
187–88
146
217
Art 55(1) 217
Art 68 217
Art 73
Art 74
Somalia
217
217, 218
Art 74(1) 217, 220, 243–44
Art 74(2) 217
Art 74(3) 217
Art 84(2)(g) .
Art 85(2) .
217
217
Art 167(3) 217–18
Art 167(4) 217–18
Art 167(5) . . .
Interim Constitution of 1993
s 74
217–18
218
Sch 4 56, 215–16
South Africa Act 1909 218
Romania
Constitution 43–44, 157–58
Art 1(1) 43–44, 110–11
Art 4(1) .
Art 6(2) .
Tajikistan
43–44
43–45
Art 13 43–45
Art 32 44–45
Art 32(3) 44–45
Art 146(l) .
157
Art 152(1) . . . 23, 28, 30, 42–44, 110, 157
Art 152(2) 40–41, 44–45, 62–63, 110–11, 157
Decret Lege nr. 2, 27 December 1989
Tunisia
23
Draf Constitution of 14 August 2012
Art 9.3 227–28
Draf Constitution of 14 December 2012
Art 147
Art 148
Draf Constitution of 22 April 2013
227–28
227–28
Art 114(1) 228–29
Art 136
Constitution of 2014 . .
227–28
. 57, 169–70, 205, 215, 226–27
Title V, Pt II 228–29
Art 1 31, 42–43, 65, 227–28
Art 2 .
Art 3 .
227–28
229
Art 42 40–41
Art 48 72–73
Art 49 62–63, 227–28
Art 62 .
Art 72
229
227–28
Art 75 227–28
Art 80 228–29
Art 82
Art 88
Art 101 .
229
228–29
228–29
Art 114(1) 228–29
Art 120 228–29
Art 143
Art 144 .
227–28
227–28
Art 146 146
Art 148 57–58, 59–60, 65, 227–29
Art 148(9) 80–81
Loi Constituante no. 2011– 6 du 16 décembre 2011, portant organisation provisoire des pouvoirs publics and Décret- loi no. 2011– 14 du 23 mars 2011, portant organisation provisoire des pouvoirs publics .
Loi organique no. 2017-62 du 24 octobre 2017, relative à la réconciliation dans le domaine administrative
