This Research Topic aims to bring together authors from different fields – mostly comparative politics and comparative constitutional law – interested in the nexus of conflict resolution and constitutionalism. The issue aims to investigate how certain potentially controversial core features of constitutionalism such as the limitation of government, the entrenchment of human rights, or the separation of powers interact with the peculiarities of post-conflict settings. In the latter regard, a broad range of potentially problematic issues appear, for instance reconciling conflicting visions for the political community; context-bound and group-specific rights; separation-of-powers versus power-sharing; the relationship between transitional justice and constitutionalism; or the frequent need for decisive leadership in the times of socio-economic hardships (usually following conflicts and accompanying the reconstruction periods). The Research Topic aims to discover both the limits and opportunities of constitutionalism in post-conflict settings, as well as find forward-looking answers on how constitutions can contribute to reconstruction and reconciliation.
The relationship between conflicting visions of the state has been a long-established topic in the literature on constitutionalism in divided societies, especially through the scholarly interest around the notion of ‘constructive ambiguity’, the simultaneous embrace of competing visions in constitutional frameworks. Nevertheless, the same issue in more deeply conflict-ridden settings often begs different questions, for example, whether log-rolling or excluding certain issues from the constitutional discourse is pragmatically more tenable in such situations. Authors who are interested in this topic are encouraged to both review the developments of the field and to address any of the relatively overlooked issues in the literature.
The relationship between the separation of powers and power-sharing has been often seen differently from different perspectives. While for political scientists, the difference between the various arrangements can be seen as different approaches to a fundamentally similar balancing act, from the perspective of constitutionalism, internalizing power-sharing within the legislative and executive branches weakens constitutional protections from governmental encroachments. Furthermore, from the perspective of comparative politics, the same issue can be seen as an extended dimension of the debate between consociationalism and centripetal majoritarianism, the former emphasizing power-sharing while the latter providing more depth for the separation of powers. Submissions on this matter are welcome touching upon a broad range of matters, such as the constitutional ramifications of intra-branch power-sharing, or the constitutional dimensions of the consociationalism vs centripetalism debate.
The nexus of constitutionalism and transitional justice addresses the relationship between context-specific needs to address injustices and human rights abuses linked to specific contexts within a future constitutional framework that aims to be universal, forward-looking, and a framework for a future society. Submissions on this topic are particularly welcome concerning the connection between past, present, and constitutional future in transitional justice arrangements.
The question of stability versus flexibility is related to one of the most fundamental dilemmas around constitutionalism in a different regard. While the commonly discussed relationship between constitutionalism and democracy identifies the tension between popular will and long-term constitutional commitments, constitutional limits on electoral majorities have an additional dimension in post-conflict settings. Given the need for decisive leadership in difficult socio-economic conditions – common in post-conflict settings – on the one hand, and the need for counter-majoritarian guarantees, inclusive governance, and robust human rights protection on the other call for a careful balancing act. In this regard, submissions are welcome from a broad range of interests, employing both small-N and large-N approaches.
Keywords:
post-conflict, entrenchment of human rights, limitation of government, conflict resolution, comparative constitutional law, comparative politics, human rights
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
This Research Topic aims to bring together authors from different fields – mostly comparative politics and comparative constitutional law – interested in the nexus of conflict resolution and constitutionalism. The issue aims to investigate how certain potentially controversial core features of constitutionalism such as the limitation of government, the entrenchment of human rights, or the separation of powers interact with the peculiarities of post-conflict settings. In the latter regard, a broad range of potentially problematic issues appear, for instance reconciling conflicting visions for the political community; context-bound and group-specific rights; separation-of-powers versus power-sharing; the relationship between transitional justice and constitutionalism; or the frequent need for decisive leadership in the times of socio-economic hardships (usually following conflicts and accompanying the reconstruction periods). The Research Topic aims to discover both the limits and opportunities of constitutionalism in post-conflict settings, as well as find forward-looking answers on how constitutions can contribute to reconstruction and reconciliation.
The relationship between conflicting visions of the state has been a long-established topic in the literature on constitutionalism in divided societies, especially through the scholarly interest around the notion of ‘constructive ambiguity’, the simultaneous embrace of competing visions in constitutional frameworks. Nevertheless, the same issue in more deeply conflict-ridden settings often begs different questions, for example, whether log-rolling or excluding certain issues from the constitutional discourse is pragmatically more tenable in such situations. Authors who are interested in this topic are encouraged to both review the developments of the field and to address any of the relatively overlooked issues in the literature.
The relationship between the separation of powers and power-sharing has been often seen differently from different perspectives. While for political scientists, the difference between the various arrangements can be seen as different approaches to a fundamentally similar balancing act, from the perspective of constitutionalism, internalizing power-sharing within the legislative and executive branches weakens constitutional protections from governmental encroachments. Furthermore, from the perspective of comparative politics, the same issue can be seen as an extended dimension of the debate between consociationalism and centripetal majoritarianism, the former emphasizing power-sharing while the latter providing more depth for the separation of powers. Submissions on this matter are welcome touching upon a broad range of matters, such as the constitutional ramifications of intra-branch power-sharing, or the constitutional dimensions of the consociationalism vs centripetalism debate.
The nexus of constitutionalism and transitional justice addresses the relationship between context-specific needs to address injustices and human rights abuses linked to specific contexts within a future constitutional framework that aims to be universal, forward-looking, and a framework for a future society. Submissions on this topic are particularly welcome concerning the connection between past, present, and constitutional future in transitional justice arrangements.
The question of stability versus flexibility is related to one of the most fundamental dilemmas around constitutionalism in a different regard. While the commonly discussed relationship between constitutionalism and democracy identifies the tension between popular will and long-term constitutional commitments, constitutional limits on electoral majorities have an additional dimension in post-conflict settings. Given the need for decisive leadership in difficult socio-economic conditions – common in post-conflict settings – on the one hand, and the need for counter-majoritarian guarantees, inclusive governance, and robust human rights protection on the other call for a careful balancing act. In this regard, submissions are welcome from a broad range of interests, employing both small-N and large-N approaches.
Keywords:
post-conflict, entrenchment of human rights, limitation of government, conflict resolution, comparative constitutional law, comparative politics, human rights
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.