Decolonial Constitutionalism

This article investigates the concept of tenure security within international law, emphasizing the global legal architectures that influence and shape land tenure governance at the intersections of international human rights law and development. By tracing the evolution of tenure security from colonial practices to modern development paradigms, the article contends that international development and human rights frameworks often perpetuate dispossession and inequality. It critiques the convergence of human rights and development narratives around the formalization of land tenure, demonstrating how this practice reinforces Western legal frameworks and ontologies of land. The article examines a range of instruments including various UN CESCR General Comments, Reports and Guidelines issued by UN Special Rapporteurs, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure, and the Sustainable Development Goals and indicators. It explores the mechanisms through which these international frameworks propose solutions for securing land tenure based on a resource ontology, highlighting how they perpetuate land commodification, marginalize and displace vulnerable populations, and contribute to the proliferation of racial capitalism. It further underscores the limitations of international human rights law mechanisms in addressing the complexities of land tenure security, dispossession, and the neoliberal agendas underlying and driving global land governance. Advocating for a decolonial approach, it challenges some of the foundational assumptions of international law and calls for the unsettling of Eurocentric and capitalist ontologies of land embraced by international development and international human rights law alike.

For a quarter-century, a consensus has prevailed that territorial sovereignty applies online as it does offline. Since practically all the Internet’s infrastructure and its billions of users reside on the territory of states, conventional wisdom holds that sovereignty must extend to cyberspace. Such accounts ignore how people experience cyberspace as a distinctive place, and how current international law lacks safeguards to prevent states from exercising their sovereignty to splinter the Internet into a set of national networks. Territorial sovereignty is also hard to square with pledges by the world’s democracies to keep the Internet free, open, and global; yet it is not the only way that international law knows to define the powers of a state.
Drawing from the law of the sea, this Article argues that we should anchor the nature of state authority in cyberspace in the limited sovereign rights that coastal states possess in the waters off their shores. Unlike the plenary powers that sovereignty vests in states over their entire land territory, a coastal state’s sovereign rights weaken the further one goes out to sea, and they are subject to the rights of other states (and of their nationals) to engage in certain peaceful uses of such waters. By redefining state authority over cyberspace in terms of layers of sovereign rights that are subject to the digital rights of others, states can enact legitimate online regulations within international legal constraints that preserve the Internet’s free, open, and global character.

The American Declaration of Independence kindled the first successful decolonial movement in the modern world, culminating in the enactment of the United States Constitution. From colony to sovereign state to great power, the United States modeled for subordinated peoples abroad how to win their own battles for sovereignty. Since the end of the Second World War, however, America’s eighteenth-century precedent of revolutionary self-determination is no longer the prevailing path to decolonization. The traditional warmaking toolkit for winning independence—revolution, illegality, and violence—has been replaced by more orderly tactics consonant with the rule of law. Evolution, lawfulness, and continuity are the touchstones in the new global model of decolonial constitutionalism that now lights the path to self-determination.
Decolonial constitutionalism is the use of legal, legitimate, and non-violent means to assert sovereignty, to secure rights, or to achieve recognition for a people, nation, or state that is legally or politically subordinate to domestic or foreign actors. In contrast to the American model of revolutionary self-determination, this new global model of decolonial constitutionalism has pluralized actors and sites of contestation, though the decisive objective of decolonization remains the same. Once won in the theatre of war, decolonization is now prosecuted in parliaments, courts of law, and the public square. The protagonists are no longer soldiers and generals; they are politicians, lawyers, judges, and civil society. Nor does self-determination today necessarily entail establishing a new state in the international order and taking a seat among equals alongside the countries of the world. In our new era of non-violent claims to sovereignty, decolonial movements choose instead to write new constitutions for existing states, to amend enduring constitutions, to enforce treaty rights, to promulgate multilateral agreements, or to pursue analogous courses of disruptive constitutional activity well short of declarations of independence. Decolonial constitutionalism therefore refers to a suite of strategies to exercise self-determination, defined expansively to comprise a broad scope of decolonial objectives consistent with the rule of law.
In this Article, I introduce, illustrate, and theorize decolonial constitutionalism as the modern form of self-determination. Drawing from historical and modern decolonial movements, I show how subordinated peoples have seized the levers of law and politics to innovate new paths to self-determination without taking up arms, in the process showing similarly situated peoples how to achieve their own goals of independence, nationhood, or constitution-making in a manner that reinforces rather than undermines the rule of law. These strategies have proven ultimately more productive for decolonial movements to free their peoples from bondage in law or politics, to attract ideologically aligned partners at home and abroad, and to more effectively communicate to internal and external audiences the moral legitimacy of their claims to self-determination.

Bilateral labor agreements (BLAs) aim to facilitate the movement of temporary migrant workers between countries. So far, studies of BLAs have focused on whether they have effects on migration flows. Despite countries entering hundreds of BLAs, evidence for their effects on migration flows remains limited. Yet, even if BLAs have limited material effects, they may still have important symbolic effects. On this topic, this Comment highlights BLAs’ potential to change rhetoric about international migration among heads of state. Drawing on an original empirical analysis focused on BLAs with the Philippines, the Comment analyzes how BLAs may influence leaders’ expressed attitudes toward international migration during United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) debates. Results reveal significant positive shifts in sentiment about international migration after countries form BLAs with the Philippines. The improved sentiment has a limited duration, however, diminishing after initial surges. Considering these findings, the Comment contributes to three bodies of legal scholarship, namely, those dealing with (1) the need for more social science research in international law, (2) the socioeconomic and political effects of BLAs, and (3) the utility of international agreements to constrain or prompt change in state action. Ultimately, the Comment calls for a comprehensive assessment of international agreements, recognizing their ability to affect not only intended outcomes but also high-profile symbolic outcomes.