View article

Over the past few decades, peace agreements have become a defining feature of political and legal settlements of internal conflict. The relationship between peace processes and constitution-making is complex, and some scholars suggest that it requires a new understanding of constitutionalism. The traditional view of a constitution, as Teitel identifies, presumes that it is a permanent and binding feature of the political future of the country. 1 By extension, this fosters a common view of constitution-making as a one-off, nation-defining event that binds political actors in the future. In contrast to this view, Teitel suggests that a period of political transition brought about by a peace agreement is better understood through the concept of transitional constitutionalism, an idea that holds in tension both the conflict of the past and the future prospects for peace. Transitional constitutionalism is depicted as being flexible and …