International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law
Focus The International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law (IJCAL) is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing critical, comparative, and interdisciplinary scholarship in constitutional law and administrative law, with particular attention to public-law developments in the Global South. The journal provides an academic forum for the examination of constitutional design, administrative governance, democratic accountability, institutional reform, and rights protection in emerging, transitional, and postcolonial legal systems. IJCAL places distinctive emphasis on the normative legacy of the Bandung Principles, understood not merely as a historic diplomatic milestone, but as a continuing source of constitutional values relevant to sovereignty, equality, anti-colonialism, solidarity, social justice, and public responsibility in contemporary constitutional development. In this respect, the journal welcomes contributions that explore how constitutional and administrative law in the Global South generate original legal thought, institutional innovation, and alternative normative frameworks beyond Eurocentric models of public law. The journal publishes original research articles, conceptual papers, and comparative studies that address both theoretical and practical dimensions of constitutional and administrative law. IJCAL is particularly interested in scholarship that combines doctrinal rigor with comparative, socio-legal, historical, or interdisciplinary perspectives in order to explain how constitutions and administrative institutions operate in practice across different jurisdictions. Aims promote high-quality scholarship in constitutional law and administrative law with international relevance; encourage comparative and critical studies on public-law institutions, legal reform, and governance; advance Global South perspectives in constitutional and administrative scholarship; develop scholarly engagement with Bandung-inspired constitutional values in contemporary legal discourse; and publish innovative research that strengthens understanding of institutional accountability, democratic participation, and rights protection in diverse legal systems. Subject Areas The journal welcomes manuscripts on, but not limited to, the following subject areas: constitutional change, constitutional identity, and constitutional adjudication; democracy, constitutional rights, and limitations on state power; administrative law, administrative justice, and bureaucratic accountability; institutional design, public governance, and legal reform in emerging and transitional democracies; and comparative constitutional and administrative law in the Global South, including Bandung-inspired constitutional values.
Articles
19 Documents
<![CDATA[Constitutional and Legislative Frameworks for Green and Sustainable Environmental Governance in Uganda ]]>
<![CDATA[Paul Atagamen Aidonojie]]>;
<![CDATA[Esther Chetachukwu Aidonojie]]>;
<![CDATA[Godswill Owoche Antai]]>;
<![CDATA[Collins Ekpenisi]]>;
<![CDATA[David Ayuba]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/n8sg2j47
<![CDATA[Climate change has emerged as a global concern, posing significant threats to environmental sustainability, biodiversity, and socio-economic stability. Developing nations like Uganda are particularly vulnerable due to limited resources for adaptation, despite possessing rich biodiversity and natural resources. The Ugandan government has recognized the need for a green and sustainable environment, as evidenced by its constitutional and legislative frameworks aimed at environmental protection and sustainable development. This study examines Uganda’s constitutional and legislative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability, focusing on their strengths, limitations, and potential improvements. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology, this study critically analyzes primary legal sources, including Uganda’s Constitution and environmental statutes, as well as secondary literature such as scholarly articles, policy reports, and case law. Findings reveal that Uganda's legal framework, particularly through Article 39 of the Constitution and environmental laws such as the National Environmental Act and Climate Change Act, provides a foundational recognition of environmental rights. However, weak enforcement mechanisms, inadequate public awareness, and economic priorities often undermine the effectiveness of these legal provisions. Additionally, fragmented institutional responsibilities and limited funding have hindered comprehensive environmental governance. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms, fostering public engagement, and ensuring a balanced approach between economic growth and environmental sustainability are essential for Uganda to achieve its green and sustainable environmental objectives. This study contributes to the broader discourse on climate governance by highlighting the role of robust legal frameworks in addressing environmental challenges in developing nations.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial and Administrative Approaches to Civil Service Dispute Resolution: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, India, and Egypt ]]>
<![CDATA[Rahdian Ade Putra Bone]]>;
<![CDATA[Chami Yassine]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/rtmt8239
<![CDATA[The effectiveness of civil service dispute resolution is crucial for ensuring bureaucratic accountability, legal certainty, and procedural fairness within public administration. Countries employ different institutional frameworks, ranging from administrative adjudication through specialized tribunals to judicial oversight via administrative courts, each presenting distinct advantages and limitations. However, there remains a significant gap in comparative legal analyses examining how these models function across diverse legal traditions. This study aims to analyze and compare the effectiveness of judicial and administrative mechanisms in resolving civil service disputes in Indonesia, India, and Egypt, focusing on legal structures, procedural safeguards, and institutional independence. The research employs a comparative legal approach, integrating doctrinal legal analysis and a socio-legal perspective, with primary sources including statutory frameworks, administrative regulations, and judicial precedents. A qualitative content analysis is used to assess patterns, divergences, and best practices among the three jurisdictions. Findings indicate that Indonesia’s dual-track system (BAPEK and PTUN) lacks enforceability in administrative adjudication, leading to over-reliance on judicial review. India’s Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) enhances efficiency and procedural accessibility but faces enforcement challenges and jurisdictional conflicts. Egypt’s State Council (Conseil d’État) provides strong judicial oversight but suffers from prolonged litigation and accessibility constraints. The study highlights the need for hybrid dispute resolution models that integrate administrative efficiency with judicial rigor. These findings provide empirical insights and policy recommendations for strengthening civil service dispute resolution mechanisms, promoting legal certainty, and enhancing bureaucratic efficiency in diverse governance systems.]]>
<![CDATA[Public Morality and Constitutionalism in Restricting LGBTQ+ Rights: A Legal Analysis of Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda ]]>
<![CDATA[Ugochukwu Godspower Ehirim]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/1t01fq02
<![CDATA[Civil liberties are the cornerstone of modern democracies, yet many African nations continue to impose legislative restrictions on sexual freedoms under the guise of public morality. Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda have enacted stringent anti-LGBTQ+ laws, often justified by appeals to sovereignty, tradition, and moral conservatism. This study critically examines the legal and constitutional legitimacy of such restrictions, exploring their consistency with international human rights frameworks. Employing a normative legal research method based on primary and secondary legal sources, this paper analyzes statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and constitutional interpretations in the three countries. Findings reveal that the reliance on public morality as a justification for derogating LGBTQ+ rights lacks a solid constitutional foundation and conflicts with internationally recognized human rights standards. The case of RTIER v FRN in Nigeria highlights a judicial shift towards recognizing sexual minorities' rights, offering a model for Ghana and Uganda. Furthermore, comparative insights from South Africa and India demonstrate how progressive constitutional interpretations can reconcile local moral values with universal human rights principles. The study concludes that while cultural relativism remains influential, constitutional safeguards and judicial activism play a crucial role in upholding fundamental human rights. It advocates for legal reforms that balance moral considerations with constitutional imperatives, ensuring equal protection for all citizens, irrespective of sexual orientation.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of Abuse of Authority by Government Apparatus in the State Administrative Legal System ]]>
<![CDATA[Ahmad Ahmad]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/v2wdah74
<![CDATA[Abuse of authority by government officials is one of the crucial problems in the Indonesian state administrative legal system that can cause great losses to the state and society. This research aims to analyze the concept, form, and handling of abuse of authority from the perspective of state administrative law. Through a normative juridical approach, this study examines relevant laws and regulations, doctrines, and case studies. The results of the analysis show that abuse of authority occurs when government officials use their power not in accordance with the goals set by the law, either by exceeding the limits of authority, mixing authority, or acting arbitrarily. Law enforcement against abuse of authority is regulated in the Government Administration Law and is the authority of the State Administrative Court (PTUN). However, its implementation still faces various obstacles, such as weak supervision, overlapping regulations, and political intervention. For this reason, it is necessary to strengthen regulations, protect whistleblowers, and apply good governance principles in order to create clean, transparent, and accountable governance. This research emphasizes the importance of the commitment of all elements of government in preventing and cracking down on abuse of authority in order to realize an effective and reliable government.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of Legal Protection of Human Rights in the Context of State Administrative Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Ahmad Ahmad]]>;
<![CDATA[Kevin Rivera]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/ac6z6f55
<![CDATA[This paper examines in detail the legal protection of human rights (HAM) in the context of State Administrative Law in Indonesia. Through a normative approach - the conceptual journal examines human rights from the historical side to the Juridical aspect. In this context, legal protection is not only preventive through regulations, but also repressive through the mechanism of human rights justice and the Supervision of independent institutions such as the National Commission on Human Rights and the Constitutional Court. This study also highlighted the strategic role of the State Administrative Agency in ensuring human rights through public services oriented to the principle of welfare state. In reality, the challenges of human rights protection still include violence, discrimination and especially abuse of authority, which requires comprehensive legal affirmation. Therefore, this journal recommends strengthening the capacity of bureaucracy as well as responsive law enforcement as the main guard in ensuring human rights protection in the context of democratic and just rule of State Administration Law.]]>
<![CDATA[Public Participation Conventions in Constitutional Policymaking: Theory, Mechanisms, and Comparative Practices ]]>
<![CDATA[Putri Handayani]]>;
<![CDATA[Revalin Moki]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/xgwg7463
<![CDATA[Existing scholarship on public participation in constitutional policymaking has largely focused on procedural inclusion and formal consultation mechanisms, while paying limited attention to how participation conventions function as structured deliberative instruments capable of shaping constitutional legitimacy. Moreover, comparative studies tend to examine participation practices in isolation, without offering a systematic framework that integrates theory, institutional mechanisms, and cross-jurisdictional best practices. This article aims to address these gaps by examining public participation conventions as normative and institutional mechanisms within constitutional policymaking, emphasizing their theoretical foundations, operational processes, and comparative applications. The study employs a normative legal research method combined with a conceptual and comparative approach, drawing on constitutional theory, legal frameworks, and selected international case studies of participatory practices. The analysis demonstrates that public participation conventions, when designed as deliberative and inclusive forums, can enhance constitutional legitimacy by bridging formal legal authority and social acceptance. It further shows that effective conventions depend on structured processes, representative participant selection, transparent deliberation, and clear follow-up mechanisms to ensure that public input substantively influences constitutional outcomes. Comparative experiences reveal that innovations such as citizen assemblies, digital participation platforms, and independent facilitation significantly improve both the quality of deliberation and the legitimacy of constitutional policy decisions. The novelty of this study lies in proposing an integrated analytical framework that positions public participation conventions not merely as consultative tools, but as constitutive elements of democratic constitutional governance. By synthesizing theory, mechanisms, and comparative practices, this article contributes to the refinement of participatory constitutionalism and offers practical guidance for strengthening constitutional policymaking in diverse democratic contexts.]]>
<![CDATA[Comparative Study on Judicial Review Mechanisms between Indonesia and South Africa: Implications for Strengthening Constitutionalism ]]>
<![CDATA[Afdi Prayoga]]>;
<![CDATA[Ahmad Imron]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/wkgds938
<![CDATA[Judicial review is a key mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and strengthening constitutionalism in modern democracies. Both Indonesia and South Africa, emerging from authoritarian regimes, adopted judicial review as part of their constitutional transition, but with different institutional choices and procedures. This study aims to compare the mechanisms of judicial review in Indonesia and South Africa and analyze their implications for constitutionalism. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, case, comparative, and historical approaches, this study examines constitutional provisions, judicial practices, and relevant scholarly works. The findings show that Indonesia applies a dualistic model: the Constitutional Court reviews statutes, while the Supreme Court reviews regulations below statutes, creating fragmentation and weakening enforcement. In contrast, South Africa adopts a centralized model, with its Constitutional Court as the sole guardian of the Constitution, supported by entrenched rights, strong guarantees of independence, and a unique certification mechanism for constitutional amendments. These institutional differences affect the degree of legal certainty, public legitimacy, and the ability of courts to safeguard constitutionalism. The study concludes that while Indonesia has made significant progress, lessons from South Africa highlight the importance of consolidating judicial review authority, strengthening compliance with judicial decisions, and enhancing participatory legitimacy in constitutional change. ]]>
<![CDATA[Constitutional Courts and the Protection of Constitutional Rights: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Authority in Indonesia and Morocco ]]>
<![CDATA[Muthi'ah Alamri]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/0wcva437
<![CDATA[This article addresses a critical gap in comparative constitutional scholarship, which has predominantly examined constitutional courts through the lens of abstract judicial review while underexploring their institutional capacity to address concrete violations of constitutional rights. Existing studies indexed in Scopus tend to focus on single-jurisdiction analyses or regional comparisons, leaving cross-continental assessments of constitutional court authority—particularly between Asian and African constitutional systems—largely underdeveloped. This research aims to analyze and compare the authority of constitutional courts in Indonesia and Morocco in protecting constitutional rights, with particular attention to the institutional limits of norm-centered constitutional adjudication. The study employs a qualitative legal research method using a comparative constitutional law approach, drawing on constitutional texts, constitutional court decisions, and relevant scholarly literature. The analysis demonstrates that, despite differing constitutional traditions and judicial structures, both Indonesia and Morocco rely primarily on abstract constitutional review as the principal mechanism of rights protection, resulting in limited access to constitutional justice for individuals experiencing concrete constitutional harm. The findings further reveal that constitutional court authority in both systems is robust at the normative level but functionally constrained in addressing rights violations arising from administrative actions or judicial practices. The novelty of this study lies in its cross-continental comparative perspective and its reconceptualization of constitutional court authority as a functional, rights-oriented institution rather than merely a formal guardian of constitutional norms, offering broader implications for the design of constitutional justice mechanisms in emerging constitutional democracies.]]>
<![CDATA[Two Rationalities of Constitutional Adjudication: Jurisdictional Expansion and Guarantist Restraint in the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court’s Coup-Plot Judgment ]]>
<![CDATA[Sander Ferreira Martinelli Nunes]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/jfb5mp62
<![CDATA[This article examines the competing constitutional and procedural rationalities expressed in the opinions of Justices Alexandre de Moraes and Luiz Fux in the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court’s adjudication of the 2022-2023 coup-plot prosecution, from the acceptance of the indictment in Petition No. 12,100/DF to the merits judgment in Criminal Action No. 2668. Adopting a doctrinal and critical-analytical method, the study evaluates each opinion against three parameters: the jurisdictional architecture of Article 102 of the 1988 Constitution, the procedural guarantees of Article 5, and the fair-trial standards of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The analysis identifies in the rapporteur’s reasoning a pattern of interpretive expansion operating across four dimensions: retention of original jurisdiction after the termination of the defendants’ public offices, aggregation of investigative and adjudicative functions in a single justice, a permissive threshold for evidentiary sufficiency, and an expansive construction of the offences introduced by Law No. 14,197/2021. The dissent, by contrast, rests on a narrower jurisdictional premise anchored in the binding precedent of AP 937, on strict typicity, and on an effective rather than merely formal conception of equality of arms. The article argues that these are not competing readings of the same doctrinal materials but two distinct models of constitutional adjudication, and that the Brazilian case offers a cautionary illustration of the institutional costs of democratic self-defence exercised through criminal jurisdiction.]]>
<![CDATA[From Bandung to the Constitution: Post-Colonial Constitutional Values in Indonesia, India, and South Africa ]]>
<![CDATA[Usman Rasyid]]>;
<![CDATA[Rismanto Kaku]]>
<![CDATA[ International Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Gorontalo Legal Research and Consulting ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.66502/95fk5c91
<![CDATA[Post-colonial constitutionalism in Asia and Africa has often been analyzed through domestic constitutional transitions or global human rights frameworks, while the normative legacy of the 1955 Bandung Conference remains largely confined to diplomatic history and international relations. This separation has obscured the extent to which Bandung Principles—such as anti-colonialism, sovereign equality, non-intervention, and self-determination—have informed the internal normative architecture and constitutional identity of post-colonial states. This article aims to examine how these Bandung-inspired norms have been internalized as constitutional values within selected Asian and African constitutional systems. Employing a normative legal research design with statutory, comparative, and philosophical approaches, the study conducts a selective comparative analysis of Indonesia, India, and South Africa. The article offers a novel conceptual reframing of the Bandung Principles as post-colonial constitutional values rather than merely diplomatic or political commitments. It demonstrates that Bandung constitutes a shared normative reference that continues to shape constitutional ethos, identity, and interpretive orientation across divergent constitutional trajectories. The analysis reveals that while Indonesia reflects an ethos-based constitutionalization closely aligned with foundational constitutional narratives, India and South Africa exhibit distinct pathways mediated by judicial culture and institutional design. By bridging diplomatic history and constitutional theory, this study contributes to comparative constitutional law by advancing a Global South perspective that recognizes historical experience and normative plurality as sources of constitutional normativity. In doing so, the article responds to its research objective by establishing Bandung as an enduring constitutional framework that informs contemporary post-colonial constitutional development beyond historical commemoration.]]>
