Transnational Constitutional Law: Bridging National Constitutions with International Norms: Transnational Constitutional Law: Bridging National Constitutions with International Norms

Andi Widjaja; Abdul  Latif; Alan Robert  White

doi:10.56107/penalaw.v4i1.296

Authors

Andi Widjaja Doctor of Law Studies Program, Postgraduate Program - Jayabaya University, Indonesia
Abdul Latif Doctor of Law Studies Program, Postgraduate Program - Jayabaya University, Indonesia
Alan Robert White Rajamangala University Of Technology Krungthep, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56107/penalaw.v4i1.296

Keywords:

Transnational Constitutional Law; Constitutional Pluralism; Monism and Dualism; Sovereignty; International Norms; Global South

Abstract

This article examines the role of transnational constitutional law as a framework for linking national constitutions with international legal norms in an era of growing global legal interdependence. While traditional theories of monism and dualism have long shaped discussions about how national and international law relate, this research shows that these models are insufficient to reflect the complex realities of modern constitutional practice. Using a normative juridical and comparative qualitative approach, the study analyzes constitutions, international treaties, and constitutional court decisions as primary sources, supported by scholarly literature and institutional reports. The findings identify three main interaction patterns: normative convergence, where international norms are integrated to bolster domestic constitutional legitimacy; constitutional resistance, where states prioritize sovereignty and selectively adopt international standards; and hybrid models, where courts navigate between domestic and international obligations through doctrines such as the margin of appreciation. These patterns underscore the increasing importance of constitutional pluralism, which views the relationship between national and international law as dialogical rather than hierarchical. Extending the analysis beyond Eurocentric contexts, this article highlights perspectives from the Global South, especially Indonesia, where selective adoption of international norms illustrates the constitutional balancing act between national identity and global commitments.

References

Albi, A., & Van Elsuwege, P. (2004). The EU Constitution, national constitutions and sovereignty: an assessment of a" European constitutional order. European Law Review, 29(6), 741. www.europa.eu.int/futurum/index_en.htm.

Allott, P. (1999). The Concept of International Law. European Journal of International Law, 10(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/10.1.31

Arnardóttir, O. M. (2016). Rethinking the two margins of appreciation. European Constitutional Law Review, 12(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019616000018

Berman, P. S. (2004). From international law to law and globalization. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43(2), 485–556.

Brkan, M. (2019). The essence of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection: Finding the way through the maze of the CJEU’s constitutional reasoning. German Law Journal, 20(6), 864–883. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.66

Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x

Cloots, E. (2017). National Identity, Constitutional Identity, and Sovereignty in the EU. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 45(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.5553/njlp/.000049

De Búrca, G. (2011). The road not taken: the European Union as a global human rights acto. American Journal of International Law, 105(4), 649–693.

Gerards, J., & Senden, H. (2009). The structure of fundamental rights and the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 7(4), 619–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mop028

Greer, S., & Williams, A. (2009). Human rights in the council of Europe and the EU: Towards “individual”, “constitutional” or “institutional” justice? European Law Journal, 15(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00473.x

Grossman, N. (2014). Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? Temp. L. Rev, 86, 61.

Ingram, J. D., & Triadafilopoulos, T. (2010). Rights, Norms, and Politics: the Case of German Citizenship Reform. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 77(1), 353–383.

Ip, E. C. (2010). Globalization and the future of the law of the sovereign state. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(3), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq033

Jackson, J. (2018). Norms, normativity, and the legitimacy of justice institutions: International perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113734

Krisch, N. (2005). International law in times of hegemony: Unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order. European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 369–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi123

Kuo, M.-S. (2013). Discovering sovereignty in dialogue: is judicial dialogue the answer to constitutional conflict in the pluralist legal landscape? Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 26(2), 341–376.

Lehmann, J. M. (2014). Persecution, concealment and the limits of a human rights approach in (European) asylum law-the case of Germany v Y and Z in the court of justice of the European Union. International Journal of Refugee Law, 26(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeu006

Linos, K., & Carlson, M. (2017). Qualitative methods for law review writing. University of Chicago Law Review, 84(1), 213–238.

Märten, J. J. (2012). Personality Rights and Freedom of Expression: A Journey through the Development of German Jurisprudence under the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Media Law, 4(2), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.5235/jml.4.2.333

McCrudden, C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 655–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn043

Murphy, S. D. (1999). Democratic legitimacy and the recognition of states and governments. In International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Vol. 48, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300063430

Negara, T. A. S. (2023). Normative Legal Research in Indonesia: Its Originis and Approaches. Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ), 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855

Newman, G. L. (2004). The uses of international law in constitutional interpretation. American Journal of International Law, 98(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3139258

Nowrot, K. (1999). Legal Consequences of Globalization : The Status of Non- Governmental Organizations Under International Law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6(2), 579–645.

Peters, B. (2012). Persecution, Concealment and the Limits of a Human Rights Approach in (European) Asylum Law–The Case of Germany v Y and Z in the Court of Justice of the European Union. German Law Journal, 13(6), 757–772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200020721

Rosenfeld, M. (2008). Rethinking constitutional ordering in an era of legal and ideological pluralism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6(3–4), 415–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mon023

Shaffer, G. (2012). Transnational legal process and state change. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 229–264.

Shany, Y. (2005). Toward a general margin of appreciation doctrine in International Law? European Journal of International Law, 16(5), 907–940. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi149

Sloss, D. L. (2020). Sovereignty and National Constitutions. U. St. Thomas LJ, 17, 1–23.

Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? (Vol. 14). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580570

Stumpf, I. (2020). Sovereignty, Constitutional Identity and European Law. Hungarian Review, 11(3), 35–46. files/12252/Stumpf - SOVEREIGNTY, CONSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY AND EUROPEAN .pdf

Sweet, A. S. (2013). The structure of constitutional pluralism: Review of nico krisch, beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of post-national law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(2), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot011

Van Elsuwege, P. (2004). A Constitution for Europe and its Consequences for the Concept of National Sovereignty. Jurisprudencija, 58(50), 96–104.

Walker, N. (2002). The idea of constitutional pluralism. The Modern Law Review, 65(3), 317–359.

Walker, N. (2016). Constitutional Pluralism Revisited Neil. European Law Journal, 22(3), 333–355.

Wendel, M. (2013). Comparative reasoning and the making of a common constitutional law: EU-related decisions of national constitutional courts in a transnational perspective. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(4), 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot043

Zumbansen, P. (2012). Defining the space of transnational law: Legal theory, global governance and legal pluralism. Beyond Territoriality, 7(5), 1–37.

Zürn, M. (2000). Norms, normativity, and the legitimacy of justice institutions: International perspectives. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 183–221. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002002

Transnational Constitutional Law: Bridging National Constitutions with International Norms