We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
What are the elements uniting (or distinguishing) entities that in different jurisdictions and historical periods, have been officially called General Congresses, Constituent Parliaments, Constituent Congresses, National Constituent Assemblies, Constitutional Assemblies, Assemblies of Revision, Parallel Constituent Assembles, or Conventions, but at the same time are generically labelled by political actors and academics as ‘constituent assemblies’? In attempting to answer that question, the objective of this chapter is threefold. First, to describe the main features of the type of institution that can be accurately identified as a constituent assembly. This requires a conception that is broad enough to cover most constitution-making bodies that would be normally labelled as ‘constituent assemblies’, but specific enough as to discriminate against entities that lack certain features. I propose that, while constituent assemblies may be understood in terms of their form or function, it is the nature of their power what distinguishes them from other constitution-drafting mechanisms. My second objective is to enquire into the limits of the power of -a properly understood- constituent assembly. Third, and relatedly, to consider the effects that the attempt to constitutionally regulate such an entity has on its ‘constituent’ nature.
Chapter 1 focuses on constitution-making and constitutional reform processes. After providing a brief historical overview of the four waves of constitution-drafting in the Arab world, this chapter examines closely the post-Arab Spring constitution-making and constitutional reform processes, focusing on the following elements: The body in charge of drafting the constitution and the role played by the ruling regime (“bottom-up” vs. “top-down” processes); the degree of openness and transparency of the process; the duration of the process; the role played by political parties; the role of civil society; the role played by external actors; the influence of previous domestic constitutions and their “reactivation”; and the influence of foreign constitutional models. The chapter shows that the vast majority of these processes were characterized by major flaws and shortcomings, a fact that had a negative impact on the legitimacy and sense of ownership of these texts and, ultimately, on the transition processes as a whole. Although it should not be idealized, the process that led to the adoption of the 2014 Tunisian Constitution was to a large extent a positive exception.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.