Constitutional Interpretation Through a Global Lens
This Article seeks to clarify the current debate concerning the use of non-U.S. persuasive authority within the context of constitutional interpretation. It begins by noting that commentary on comparative constitutional law often fails to make any distinction between foreign domestic sources and international law used comparatively, and thus risks evoking parallels between different systems of law that lack context and plausibility. It then draws on various normative theories and underpinnings of both domestic and international legal regimes to show that a proper comparative enterprise must take this distinction into account. The Article concludes by explaining that only when those policy goals of international law and domestic law coincide should international law materials be called upon as sources of persuasive authority for domestic constitutional interpretation.