Autochthonous Constitutions

Peter Oliver

dans R. Grote, F. Lachenmann, R, Wolfrum, dirs, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, 2017)

Résumé (dans la langue de publication) :

“Autochthony” refers to the fact that a constitution is, legally speaking, “home grown” or rooted in native soil. By this it is meant that the constitution owes its validity and authority to local legal factors, rather than to the fact of enactment by a foreign legal process. Autochthony was especially important to countries which achieved independence from the former British Empire.

According to a highly influential account, there were three possible criteria for constitutional autochthony . The first criterion turned on whether legal continuity with the external power had been broken in the enactment of the new constitution. A second, quite different criterion asked whether all processes for operating constitutional change were locally operated. A third, alternative criterion attempted to gauge whether the people, or possibly the courts, “regard the constitution as authoritative because of their own acceptance of it”.

Whether a country had truly achieved constitutional autochthony in either the first or the second sense, it was also possible to speak more figuratively of degrees of autochthony, in the third more figurative sense. For instance, even if a country achieved its independence by means of legal continuity, thereby missing out on autochthony in the first sense, it would still be possible to say that that country’s constitution contained autochthonous elements in that it was, say, drafted by local representatives, preceded by a preamble invoking local sources and amendable by the people voting in a referendum.

Preoccupation with constitutional autochthony emerged largely in response to certain dominant theoretical currents, associated in particular with the writings of A.V. Dicey and Hans Kelsen. Over time, the more inflexible elements of those theories were broken down, and constitutional observers came to believe that constitutional continuity and constitutional independence were not incompatible choices but instead simultaneously achievable. Accordingly, constitutional autochthony is not the controversial issue that it once was, though observers may continue to assess relative degrees of autochthony.

Cliquez ici pour visiter le site web de l'éditeur.

Domaines :

À propos de l’auteur :

Grâce à ses recherches novatrices en matière constitutionnelle, Peter C. Oliver s’est bâti une réputation d’expert à l’échelle nationale et internationale. Il a appliqué son approche théorique, comparée et historique à des problèmes juridiques pratiques tels que la dévolution du Commonwealth, une Union européenne plus étroite, l’indépendance et la sécession. Ses écrits récents explorent les enjeux liés à la Constitution canadienne, et en particulier en ce qui a trait à la modification de la Constitution, aux conventions constitutionnelles et au fédéralisme. Le professeur Oliver concentre ses recherches sur les interprétations de deux concepts théoriques fondamentaux : la « souveraineté » et le « système juridique ». Sa façon subtile et profonde d’aborder ces deux concepts donne lieu à un compte rendu théorique de transitions juridiques fondamentales, en expliquant notamment la manière dont la continuité constitutionnelle peut engendrer l’indépendance constitutionnelle. Ses travaux ont été cités dans le monde entier, dans des publications majeures aussi bien en Australie, au Canada, en Inde, en Israël, au Japon, en Nouvelle‑Zélande, en Afrique du Sud, qu’au Royaume-Uni et aux États-Unis.

Cliquez ici pour visiter sa page web de la Faculté.

Haut de page