Eight Decades of Comparative Constitutional Law at Jagiellonian University

The authors describe the history of comparative constitutional law research conducted at the Jagiellonian University after the Second World War. The authors’ comments also serve as a pretext to describe the research activities of the Chair in Comparative Constitutional Law on its 20th anniversary. In 2021 the chair staff celebrated this anniversary by organising a nationwide seminar, which inspired this special issue of the Przegląd Konstytucyjny.

Questions about the Future of Constitutionalism. The Strength and the Weakness of Comparative Law

The future of constitutionalism revolves around two critical issues which we see against the backdrop of the crisis of liberal democracy. The first issue concerns the conflict between the “judicial” constitutionalism and “political” constitutionalism. The “judicial” constitutionalism assumes a strong role of courts in a democratic system. Only courts can decide on compatibility of law with the constitution. In turn, the “political” constitutionalism assumes that the parliament decides on constitutional law. The rivalry between these two constitutionalisms seems to be the matrix of contemporary political dilemmas. The result of this rivalry is important for the efforts to end Polish constitutional crisis, as we will have to decide on the constitutional benchmarks applicable after the crisis. The second issue concerns the limits of constitutionalism. The author argues that the current digital era created a new phenomenon of digital constitutionalism. It operates in the sphere of private law relationships, dominated by private entities (big corporations). The relevant provisions for the digital world are the private law provisions. Comparative law and comparativists are crucial for answering the questions on the future of constitutionalism. The conflict of the two visions of constitutionalism and the extension of its limits are a great “training ground” for the comparativists.

Context is Everything. On the Difficult Art of “European” Comparative Studies Jurisprudence of Constitutional Courts

Comparative research of the case-law of constitutional courts concerning the membership of a given state in the EU (referred to in the article as “European” case-law of constitutional courts) requires taking into account various contexts in which this case-law is involved. The aim of this article is to indicate and analyze the most important of them, namely: the systemic context, the temporal context, the political context (including related problem of the politicization of the constitutional court), and the theoretical context. Moreover, the article draws attention to the necessity to contextualize “constitutional borrowings”, which acquires special meaning in connection with the perceived phenomenon of abuse of the “comparative argument”. Sometimes the distinguished contexts overlap, for example in the case of the temporal context and political context, but their separation allows for a better understanding of the complexity of comparative research on the European acquis constitutionnel. The specificity of this subject of legal-comparative research proves the correctness of the thesis that the contemporary constitutional comparative law must face several challenges. The first is the integration of the classical “horizontal” comparative method with the “vertical” dimension related to the influence of international and supranational norms on national constitutional systems. The second challenge is related to supporting an interdisciplinary approach to comparative constitutional law, which will take into account the perspective of social sciences, such as political science, sociology or history. The third challenge, then, is related to establishing the right balance between focusing on specific (not only) legal issues related to the analyzed issue and taking into account a broader vision of the directions of changes in European constitutionalism. The fourth challenge, in turn, concerns the popularization of the results of scientific research related to comparative studies of the “European” acquis constitutionnel. The last (and perhaps the most difficult) challenge facing the comparative research of “European” case law of constitutional courts is an attempt to answer the question to what extent this diverse jurisprudence conglomerate is a manifestation of the stability of constitutional law and the constitution, and to what extent it is a driving force for dynamic changes in contemporary public law.

The Empathetic Constitutional Listening. In Search of New Methodological Perspectives

The article argues for reopening a serious discussion on the methodology of comparative studies on constitutional orders. Following this lead, it aims to reconstruct and critically discuss Michael W. Dowdle’s concept of constitutional listening. This concept contains a broad vision of conducting comparative studies of constitutional matters. Particular attention will be devoted to the empathic-based approach to other constitutional orders, which employs the Davinsonian principle of charity. This thread is one of the most interesting but controversial of Dowdle’s proposals. The article contains a general assessment of the concept of empathy-based constitutional listening.

Comparative Interpretation or Non-comparative Reference to Foreign Law? (A case Study of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal)

The aim of the article is a reconstruction of the Constitutional Tribunal’s understanding of references to foreign law and jurisprudence. The research sample consists of judgments concerning: (i) the Lisbon Treaty; (ii) shooting down a civil aircraft; (iii) control of the objectives of a political party; (iv) data retention. Other judgements are referred supplementary. The article focuses on the internal point of view of the Constitutional Tribunal. It analyses how the Tribunal describes and understands the references to foreign law and foreign case law. It also discusses how the Tribunal uses that references. The main argument is that the Tribunal does not perceive its practice (i.e. references to foreign law) as comparative constitutionalism or comparative thinking. Consequentially, maybe it is not justified for scholars to criticize this practice as comparatively flawed. The article ends with a call to view the Tribunal’s references differently since the references to foreign law are an element of the non-linguistic context of the interpretation of constitutional provisions. It is also closer to an argument from authority than a comparative one.

Abusive Constitutional Borrowing as a ‘Dark Side’ of Liberal Democracy (A Review)

In the book Abusive Constitutional Borrowing. Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy its authors Rosalind Dixon and David Landau emphasize that legal globalization has its ‘dark side’ since the norms of liberal and democratic constitutionalism can easily be used for anti-democratic purposes. There appears disorientation in both the national and international political arena through the application of norms, which are peculiar to democracies, albeit they constitute potent tools for consolidating power and suppressing opposition. The present era is the time where democratic backsliding and covert autocratization have become the prevalent issues. Some regimes dress their activities under the guise of a liberal and democratic discourse. In lieu of committing military coups, modern policymakers tend to implement more legal forms of anti-democratic change to undermine democracy by using constitutional rights or the courts (judicial review). The characteristic feature of abusive constitutional borrowing is to maximize the achievement of antidemocratic goal. It is a deliberate attack on the democratic minimum core, which consequently leads to a gradual erosion of democracy. Modern democracies have a tendency to move back to autocratization by combining different forms of constitutional abuses, which can be classified as constitutional changes and sub-constitutional ones with a formal or informal character. Moreover, one can also discern various forms of borrowings i.e., superficial, selective, acontextual, and anti-purposive.