Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative and Theoretical Study

Constitutional provisions that are ambiguous, vague, or insufficiently explicit must often be interpreted by judges. Should the judges be guided by contemporary values, rather than the original intentions of the founders? That is problematic, because interpretation is then difficult to distinguish from change. Constitutions usually require that they be changed only by some special, democratic procedure. Australian scholars have only begun to consider such issues, which have been debated in America for decades. This project will involve a comparison of the methodologies of constitutional interpretation in five different countries, and a theoretical inquiry into the underlying normative and linguistic principles.