This article explores the role of constitutional judges in advancing constitutional literacy, understood as knowledge relating to the functioning of the constitutional order. Part of the inquiry is descriptive and geared towards identifying the modalities that courts today use to cultivate such literacy among the public, or segments thereof. The article also poses normative questions about literacy-boosting efforts. How do these relate to “typical” judicial functions? Are courts well-placed and equipped to disseminate constitutional knowledge? Based on an analysis of judicial practices, it is suggested that lay individuals are increasingly treated as a key constituency by courts, warranting the development of specially curated initiatives crafted with the values of inclusion, accessibility, and transparency in mind. This manifests notably in a turn to social media use and an incipient embrace of legal design thinking. The available literacy-boosting modalities are not without flaws, however, and we should be cognizant of limits regarding what can realistically be expected of courts in furthering popular constitutional knowledge. Notwithstanding room for improvement in the design and delivery of constitutional literacy, the existing judicial efforts when viewed in their entirety should be evaluated positively as making a meaningful contribution in meeting people’s interests in greater constitutional knowledge.

This article presents a roadmap for examining the phenomenon of monarchy in Asia, which we conceive as a pluralist institution in a twofold manner. First, many monarchies discharge a wide range of roles and responsibilities ranging from the symbolic to the religious to the legal-political. These varied functions can be usefully captured under the notion of constitutional guardianship, and call for intersectional analysis. Second, it is common for monarchies to have metamorphosed from being purely endogenous institutions to becoming ones embedded in a scheme of limited, constitutional government under the influence of ideas from elsewhere. Monarchies should accordingly be viewed as a form of legal métissage, viz. a braiding of local and extraneous ideas, practices, and rules. In this sense, a law-and-society approach is more likely to reveal the nature of monarchies than a strictly legal-doctrinal approach, although some of the latter is needed to fully appreciate the former’s significance.

Exposure to foreign law is immensely valuable as it expands students’ argumentative and analytical terrain. More pragmatically, there has been a discernable shift towards rule-of-law thinking in furthering regional integration and a flurry of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) involving Asian countries. Law schools ought to capitalize on this reality. The preferred educational strategy to adopt, we argue, entails systematically integrating foreign law across the traditional components that make up undergraduate curricula. Asian law schools should simultaneously offer general comparative courses that train students in comparative methodology and theory, enabling them to become discerning consumers of and sensible contributors to comparative research, including in the context of domestic law reform. In advocating such mainstreaming of foreign law, we further suggest a broad understanding of this notion as encompassing all rules that do not have their origins in the municipal legal order, including those produced by regional organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Unlike Europe's law schools, which have been laggards in adapting law school curricula to changes in their wider regional environment, Asia's law schools have the opportunity to anticipate the growing relevance of foreign law in practice and thereby ensure that they remain germane to the legal industry and society at large.

How have Asian nations conducted, or how are they conducting, constitution-making in the face of pressures associated with globalisation, and how do they balance those forces with domestic interests and realities? This article aims to develop an analytical framework that can capture this global–local interplay. It introduces the concept of ‘glocalised constitution-making’ to denote the co-existence and relationship between the two governance levels as manifested in the forces, actors and norms pertaining to the process of drafting a new constitution as well as its substance. Glocalisation permeates the entirety of a constitution-making episode, from the impetus to initiate the process, to its design and inclusiveness of interests featured, and the scope of topics considered. The effects of glocalised constitution-making for domestic drafters are arranged along a continuum with approbation and aversion as the polar opposites. The precise location on the continuum will depend on the value preferences of the domestic stakeholders and the matters under consideration. The application of this analytical framework is illustrated with reference to recent constitution-making exercises in Bhutan, Nepal, Thailand, East Timor and Sri Lanka.

This article critically evaluates the interplay among courts with constitutional jurisdiction in Asia. This is done in the specific context of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC). The article finds that the AACC has to date made only a nominal contribution to cultivating inter-court relations in furtherance of common goals and advances the claim that its members ought to rectify this state of affairs. On the one hand, transnational judicial alliances have instrumental value for participating courts in the discharge of their mandate. On the other hand, the AACC can be a useful conduit in nurturing an Asian perspective to the global judicial discourse on constitutional issues. In that vein, the article identifies the most suitable means to enable the AACC to optimally discharge its role to help advance respect for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in the region.