In a foundational 1999 essay, Professor Mark Tushnet outlined three frameworks through which to consider the contributions of comparative constitutional law: functionalism, expressivism, and bricolage.1 According to Tushnet, ‘Functionalism claims that particular constitutional provisions create arrangements that serve particular functions in a system of governance.’2 Expressivism, in contrast, looks more to the symbolic, rather than to the instrumental, aspects of constitutions: ‘According to the expressivist view, constitutions help constitute the nation, to...
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
content. Please,
subscribe
or
login
to access all content.