Book Launch: The Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory

On Monday, 13 October, the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC) organised a panel event to celebrate the launch of The Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2025), edited by Centre members Richard Bellamy and Jeff King.

Opening the event, Erin Delaney (UCL Laws, GCDC) remarked that the book brings together contributions from leading scholars of constitutional theory, with backgrounds in law, philosophy, and political science. She noted that the book’s 60 chapters provide an exceptional survey of the field and are themselves contributions to knowledge, covering values, modalities, institutions, and challenges for constitutional democracy. She explained that the day’s discussions would cover only a small portion of the rich content in the book.

Following the introductory remarks, the first discussant, Leah Trueblood (University of Surrey), started by setting out the purpose of a handbook: to provide inspiration and ideas to help solve hard problems, and to help one make difficult choices between competing priorities. Opining that the book met these two criteria, she set out specific contributions made by the book – focusing on the chapters on dignity, rights, self-government, and recognition. She then turned to the chapter on climate change, which seemed to frame emergency as a kind of scarcity, and proposed substantively including scarcity as a topic for constitutional theory. 

The second discussant, Alon Harel (Hebrew University), emphasised the timeliness of the book, suggesting that the deeper understanding of constitutionalism that the book provides can help strengthen the survival of constitutions that seem to be in danger across the world. He observed that the multiplicity of values and subject matters classified as constitutional make it difficult to capture the essence of what a constitution is. He then proposed two features shared by all constitutions: (1) the norms and values that constitutions contain are considered foundational to the governance and life of polities, and (2) constitutions are typically very salient in the social and political life of the polity. He ended by stressing that the endorsement of citizens is necessary for the goods provided by the constitution to be realised. As such, the constitution must stress the prominence of the norms and values it contains.

Carmen Pavel (King’s College London), the third discussant, noted that science fiction often fails to draw on constitutional history to model new possible worlds and that is a missed opportunity to help people imagine peaceful and flourishing future communities. She noted that the book is an excellent repository of this constitutional history and its attending theoretical frameworks, focusing on concepts such as equality, liberty, political representation, and the rule of law, among others. She then pointed to challenges in the current political situation, characterised by regressive domestic policies, rejection of principles of international law, and actions that undermine constitutional government. Informed by the collection of essays, she outlined three possible responses to contemporary problems: renew the case for liberal democracy with arguments suited for today’s world, draw new lessons from experiments in constitutional institutional design, and review the domestic constitutional basis on which states engage with each other in international politics.

Udit Bhatia (King’s College London), the final discussant, pointed to the editors’ description of normative constitutional theory as a branch of applied political theory that pays close attention to constitutional institutional detail and aspires to transcend particular political orders. He then outlined two ways in which theory can transcend particular political orders: (1) by addressing questions that most constitutional democracies share, and (2) by addressing features that surface under more limited but recurring constraints. He posited that failing to recognise the second issue, which frequently emerges in weak democracies, will result in an inability to identify a whole array of normative issues. He then highlighted an important tension revealed by the book between incremental constitutional adjustment and radical constitutional reimagination, suggesting that deciding which path to take will depend on how deep the problems are, the risk of major change, and how bad the status quo is. He concluded by proposing that normative constitutional theory should move closer to philosophy (imagining institutions that do not exist) and history (analysing neglected institutions as resources for democratic renewal).

Responding to the comments, Richard Bellamy (UCL Laws, GCDC) pointed to Trueblood’s comment on scarcity, linking it to Hume’s view that the circumstances of justice arise from scarcity and limited altruism. These ineliminable features of the human condition also create the circumstances of constitutionalism and thus he agreed that scarcity should be considered a constitutional issue, even though it is not typically seen as such. 

He then turned to Harel’s comment on the importance of constitutions, linking it to Raz’s remark that to be operative a constitution must be perceived as being ‘people’s law’ rather than ‘lawyers’ law’. He agreed with the importance of this view but also noted the fragility of the constitution in this context, pointing to the US – where the constitution has hitherto been viewed as the product of ‘we the people’ – as an example of this fragility. Bellamy mentioned Pavel’s call to arms as a possible solution, but suggested that the problem may lie not inherently with liberal democratic political values but in part with the material constitution, which has been neglected. He suggested that dissatisfaction with the current political order is linked to a form of economy that fails to address the scarcity problem for so many people. He posited that the economic constitution is vital in addressing the problems we face, and that area is possibly a lacuna that needs to be filled.

Regarding Bhatia’s comments, Bellamy agreed that principles may be universal but require different instantiations in various contexts, and a certain constitutional value can be realised in different ways, through different institutions. On the tension between reform and revolution, Bellamy expressed that he tends to favour incremental change over revolution but acknowledged that we may be forced into a position where that is no longer an option.

Following Bellamy’s remarks, Jeff King (UCL Laws, GCDC) began by reiterating the ambitious agenda of the book, which draws linkages between different areas of constitutional theory and institutions. Responding to Trueblood, he agreed that scarcity is important, noting that Rawls incorporates considerations of scarcity into the circumstances of justice, just as Waldron does in relation to the circumstances of politics. However, King suggested that in good constitutional theory, the recognition of these kinds of limits is often implicit in the analysis, and where scarcity is acute (e.g., in emergencies and social welfare rights), it becomes explicit in the analysis.

On Bhatia’s comments, King acknowledged that foregrounding real-world institutions in high-capacity democracies may be a limitation. However, he questioned whether one could have a political theory of the second best for non-consolidated democracies, noting that a lot of considerations will relate in those polities to strategic and instrumental choices rather than theoretical questions, and the answers will likely vary widely in each jurisdiction.

King also expressed support for Harel’s comment that constitutional systems should amplify their salience by bringing their recognition to the forefront of public life. However, he highlighted the risk that forcing citizens to engage with the language of rights and other concepts could bring to the fore myths and misconceptions that more seasoned constitutional operators are less likely to adopt.

Finally, King agreed with Pavel’s call for a defence of liberal democracy that is suited to the current political moment. However, he highlighted the difficulty of performing this task in an environment that struggles with truth. He noted that when arguments are designed to refute the other side, they are not instrumentally effective in shoring up the values we think are important. This raises difficulties for how people should view their role as public intellectuals. He ended by stressing the importance of Pavel’s reflections on internationality, agreeing on the need for a shift in how states work internationally.

The comments were followed by a vibrant discussion between panellists and members of the audience. The book is available on Cambridge University Press.

Watch a video recording of the event on UCL Laws’ YouTube channel, or view it directly below.

Related: Bellamy and King on Constitutional Theory