This article suggests that the conditions under which the Chilean constitutional process of 2021–22 undertook its task held the seeds of its doom. Constitutional conventions are always tasked with reaching agreements on the controversial allocation of decision rights, and doing so is no simple feat. The Chilean process combined (1) very dispersed preferences regarding the problems the new constitution should solve and the institutions to best enable solutions, with (2) a brief timeframe to allow for agreements to emerge, aggravated by (3) a composition of the Convention that was dominated by independents lacking experience in legislative bargaining, and (4) a severe disenchantment of the population with parties and politics as the backdrop. Together, these hurdles proved impossible to overcome. Despite the notorious political achievements of the Committee we study here, the proposal that came out of Chile’s Constitutional Convention in 2021 was plagued by controversy and a negative perception of the Convention’s work, and was ultimately rejected by the people.

Chile’s experience with its Constitutional Convention from 2021 to 2022 sheds light on an important issue for comparative reflection: the role of procedures in constitution-making processes. The Constitutional Convention was bound by procedures that were both externally imposed and internally created. Our assessment is that, while some procedures improved representation and deliberation, the most important decision-making procedures were pernicious to the process. We argue that looking at procedures is fundamental when analysing constitutional processes, as the rules that bind rule-making processes can significantly impact not only their functioning, but also their outcomes.

Rivka Weill claims that in the nineteenth century the foundation of the UK constitution changed from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty, originally as a matter of constitutional convention but today as a matter of law. I argue, to the contrary, that parliamentary sovereignty as a legal principle and popular sovereignty as a political principle are perfectly compatible. Constitutional conventions are essentially political not legal requirements. Therefore, a constitutional convention requiring popular approval of constitutional change, if it ever existed, would not have violated parliamentary sovereignty. But if it did exist, it was displaced by the Parliament Act 1911 and has not been revived since. Moreover, there is no evidence that courts today have legal authority to enforce any requirement, conventional or legal, requiring such approval.

This paper assesses the current state of the war prerogative, specifically focusing on deployment decisions. It outlines the constitutional position over troop deployments, scrutinises recent reform efforts and problematises the rationale underpinning those reforms. The paper proceeds along one simple normative claim: that against the backdrop of frequent interventions, the publication of the Iraq Inquiry and a series of Bills that have sought to statutorise deployment decisions, less use-of-force is better than more use-of-force, and constitutional arrangements ought to reflect this. The paper begins with an exegesis of the most recent attempt to bring deployment decisions onto a statutory footing, focusing on: (a) the difficulties and concomitant problems in defining ‘conflict decisions’; and (b) whether it could make deployment decisions reviewable. The paper then seeks to examine the rationale for reform, arguing that the main impetus behind the series of efforts has been to democratise the process of troop deployments when instead they should focus on use-of-force reduction.

The difference of judicial opinion in the Supreme Court in Evans provokes reflection on fundamental constitutional principles, such as parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. A statute that on its face seems to permit a government minister to override a judicial decision of which he disapproves inevitably raises acute concern; the correct reading of the statute depends on the most persuasive integration of basic principles, placing the text within its wider constitutional context. The Justices deployed distinctions between law, fact, and public interest in rather different ways, reflecting their divergent interpretative approaches. The role of constitutional convention is also of particular interest – central to the legal issues arising, on one view, but largely irrelevant on another. At the root of these disagreements lie contrasting conceptions of law and adjudication.