Adaptive constitutionalism: author's typology of models and criteria for sustainable legitimacy

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Modern constitutionalism faces a fundamental challenge: how to maintain the stability of the constitutional order amid accelerating social, technological, and geopolitical transformations, avoiding both conservative ossification and destructive plasticity. In this context, the concept of "adaptive constitutionalism" acquires the status of a key analytical category that requires strict operationalization and systematization. Existing approaches are typically limited to describing institutional mechanisms or appealing to general principles of flexibility without constructing a comprehensive typology. In these conditions, arises the necessity for a theoretical toolkit capable of not only describing but also normatively evaluating the quality of adaptation processes. The subject of the study is the adaptive constitutionalism as a multidimensional and dynamic social institution, whose viability is determined by its capacity for internal evolution without the loss of its normative core. The aim of the article is to develop an original typology of models of adaptive constitutionalism and to formulate criteria for "sustainable legitimacy" as a normative ideal of a viable constitutional order. The methodological basis of this study consists of a systemic-typological approach, supplemented by comparative-legal and hermeneutical analysis. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the proposal of a multidimensional typology, including five models of adaptive constitutionalism – judicial-adaptive, formally-stable, hybrid-adaptive, evolutionary-pluralistic, and imitation-adaptive. For the first time in domestic and foreign doctrine, the concept of "sustainable legitimacy" is introduced and operationalized, synthesizing legal and socio-political legitimacy through five measurable criteria. The study demonstrates that adaptation models are not static but subject to dynamic transformation, including degradation – as observed in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. The proposed typology possesses not only theoretical but also practical value: it can be used by legislators, constitutional courts, and international organizations to diagnose the resilience of constitutional systems. In conclusion, the necessity for further verification of the typology in a global context and its adaptation to digital challenges and non-colonial concepts of legitimacy is emphasized.

About the authors

Sergei Yur'evich Poyarkov

Email: psu70@bk.ru

References

  1. Поярков С.Ю. Адаптивный конституционализм: концептуальные основания и институциональные механизмы в условиях политико-правовой турбулентности // Административное и муниципальное право. 2025. № 3. С. 67-85. doi: 10.7256/2454-0595.2025.3.74695 EDN: OYYMQE URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=74695
  2. Лазарев В.В. Конституция как стабилизирующий фактор развития общества // Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. – 2020. – Т. 14, № 2. – С. 314-325. doi: 10.21202/1993-047X.14.2020.2.314-325 EDN: YGKVGW.
  3. Klarman M.J. Constitutional Fact/Constitutional Fiction: A Critique of Bruce Ackerman's Theory of Constitutional Moments // Stanford Law Review. – 1992. – Vol. 44. – P. 759.
  4. Денисов С.А. Общая теория имитации конституционного строя // Конституционное и муниципальное право. – 2018. – № 3. – С. 12-18. EDN: TIGKDD.
  5. Cope K.L., Versteeg M. The Procedure of Democratic Erosion // Emory Law Journal. – 2024. – Vol. 73. – P. 1249.
  6. Dixon R., Landau D. Abusive Constitutional Borrowing. Legal globalization and the subversion of liberal democracy, 2021. – 240 с.
  7. Hirschl R. Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. – 318 с.
  8. Elkins Z., Ginsburg T., Melton J. The Endurance of National Constitutions. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. – 272 с.
  9. Huq A., Ginsburg T. How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy // UCLA Law Review. – 2018. – Vol. 65. – P. 78.
  10. Jacobsohn G.J. Constitutional Identity. – Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. – 388 с.
  11. Loughlin M. Political Jurisprudence. – Oxford University Press, 2017. – 200 с.
  12. Waldron J. Constitutionalism: A Skeptical View / NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-87. – 2012. – (Public Law Research Paper No. 10-87). – [Электронный ресурс].
  13. Bellamy R. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  14. Краснов М. Толкования конституции как ее фактические поправки // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. – 2016. – № 1 (110). – С. 77-91. EDN: TKGWEF.
  15. Roznai Y. Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
  16. Albert R. Constitutional Amendment and Dismemberment // Yale Journal of International Law. – 2018. – Vol. 43. – P. 1. (Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 424).
  17. Jakab A. Constitutional Resilience / In: Grote R., Lachenmann F., Wolfrum R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022; публикация авторского текста 06.12.2023. – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4656217. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.
  18. Barber N.W. Constitutional Entrenchment / In: Bellamy R., King J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025. – С. 417-432.
  19. Turner R. On Brown v. Board of Education and Discretionary Originalism // Utah Law Review. – 2015. – Vol. 2015, No. 5, Art. 4. – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2015/iss5/4. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.
  20. Khan Y. Case Study: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-ors-v-union-of-india-uoi-ors/. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.
  21. Крусс В.И. Конституционная идентичность России: актуальность и целеполагание // В кн.: Глобальный конфликт и контуры нового мирового порядка. XX Международные Лихачевские научные чтения. – Санкт-Петербург, 2022. – С. 571-573. EDN: LBNRZB.
  22. Подолян Д.А. Формирование доктрины конституционной идентичности // Северо-Кавказский юридический вестник. – 2017. – № 4. – С. 94-100. doi: 10.22394/2074-7306-2017-1-4-94-100 EDN: VTXISD.
  23. Блохин П. Судебная доктрина конституционной идентичности: генезис, проблемы, перспективы // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. – 2018. – № 6 (127). – С. 62-81. doi: 10.21128/1812-7126-2018-6-62-81 EDN: VPJNUW.
  24. Чуйченко К.А., Кропачев Н.М., Кондуров В.Е. Традиционные российские духовно-нравственные ценности в контексте современной правовой политики // Правоведение. – 2024. – Т. 68, № 2. – С. 156-165. doi: 10.21638/spbu25.2024.201 EDN: BBHZHJ.
  25. Бабурин С.Н. Конституционная реформа 2020 года в Российской Федерации как путь укрепления нации // Конституционное и муниципальное право. – 2021. – № 1. – С. 3-6. doi: 10.18572/1812-3767-2021-1-3-6 EDN: LEGJPW.
  26. Хорунжий С.Н. Конституционная идеология российской идентичности: самобытный баланс конституционно защищаемых ценностей // Гражданин. Выборы. Власть. – 2022. – № 2 (24). – С. 11-25. EDN: GLVJEB.
  27. Bhatia G. The hydra and the sword: Constitutional amendments, political process, and the BBI case in Kenya // Global Constitutionalism. – 2025. – Vol. 14, No. 2. – P. 349-370.
  28. Miyandazi V., Okubasu D.M. Judiciary chiefs in hybrid regimes: Kenya // International Journal of Constitutional Law. – 2025. – Vol. 23, No. 1. – P. 240-262.
  29. Kelemen R.D. The dangers of constitutional pluralism / In: Davies G., Avbelj M. (eds.) Research Handbook on Legal Pluralism and EU Law. – 2018. – P. 392-404.
  30. Bellamy R., Kroger S. Countering Democratic Backsliding by EU Member States: Constitutional Pluralism and ‘Value' Differentiated Integration // [Источник не указан: журнал/сборник/год не указаны].
  31. de Boer N. The False Promise of Constitutional Pluralism // Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2018-05; Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance Research Paper No. 2018-03. – 16.03.2018. – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141760. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.
  32. Wolthuis B., Crum B., Oleart A., Overeem P. Democracy and pluralism after European integration: Incorporating the contested character of the EU // Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. – 2023. – Vol. 28, No. 6. – P. 1136–1160.
  33. Scheppele K.L.; Bánkuti M., Halmai G., Scheppele K.L. Hungary's Illiberal Turn: Disabling the Constitution // Journal of Democracy. – 2012. – Vol. 23, No. 3. – P. 138-146.
  34. Мусина Р.И. Венгерская конституция 2012 года. К десятилетию принятия основного закона // Социально-гуманитарные знания. – 2022. – № 2. – С. 248-262. doi: 10.34823/SGZ.2022.2.51790 EDN: UVWCOV.
  35. Sadurski W. Poland's Constitutional Breakdown. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. – 304 с.
  36. OSCE/ODIHR. Final report on Turkey's constitutional referendum – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/324806. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.
  37. Esen S. The 2017 Constitutional Reforms in Turkey: Removal of Parliamentarism or Democracy? – [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/test-3/2018/5/26/analysis-the-2017-constitutional-reforms-in-turkey-removal-of-parliamentarism-or-democracy. – Дата обращения: 19.10.2025.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).