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
4 Documents
Search results for
, issue
"vol. 1 no. 2 (2025)"
:
4 Documents
clear
<![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[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[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.]]>
<![CDATA[The Role of Judicial Review by the Constitutional Court as Guardian of the World of Life: An Approach by Jürgen Habermas ]]>
<![CDATA[Rahmat Mokodompit]]>;
<![CDATA[Hartina]]>
<![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: 10.66502/137wzf49
<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court plays a strategic role in Indonesia's constitutional system through its authority to conduct judicial review of laws. This authority is not only technical in nature, but also determines the quality of legal legitimacy and substantive democracy. This article aims to analyze the role of judicial review by the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the lifeworld using Jürgen Habermas' approach. This study uses a normative method with a legislative and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that in a legal formation dominated by instrumental rationality, the law has the potential to become detached from the values and social experiences of society, thereby colonizing the lifeworld. In this context, judicial review by the Constitutional Court functions as a corrective normative mechanism that reconnects law with communicative rationality and democratic legitimacy. This article argues that the Constitutional Court can act as the guardian of the lifeworld as long as judicial review is conducted openly and argumentatively.]]>
