Judicial Review In The Age Of International Constitutionalism: Reconceptualizing The Convergence Of National Constitutional Identity, The Supremacy Of Global Legal Frameworks, And The Protection Of Fundamental Rights Amidst Sovereign Autonomy In The Evolv

Abstract

In the contemporary epoch of transnational legal integration, judicial review occupies an increasingly pivotal role at the intersection of national sovereignty and global constitutionalism. The ascendancy of international legal frameworks—particularly those enshrining human rights and supranational governance—has prompted a reconceptualization of constitutional adjudication, compelling domestic courts to navigate the intricate dialectic between preserving constitutional identity and adhering to evolving international norms. This paper interrogates the shifting contours of judicial review in this complex legal milieu, where sovereignty is no longer absolute, but mediated through the normative pull of global legal commitments. Through a critical analysis of constitutional jurisprudence from both national and supranational courts—including the German Federal Constitutional Court, the Italian Constitutional Court, the South African Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union—this study elucidates how judicial actors reconcile the imperatives of domestic constitutional autonomy with the authoritative reach of international law. It posits that courts are no longer mere guardians of national constitutions but have emerged as transjudicial interlocutors fostering normative convergence across legal systems. This reconceptualized vision of judicial review emphasizes a dynamic, dialogical engagement between legal orders, grounded in mutual respect and the pursuit of coherence in the protection of fundamental rights. The analysis foregrounds the risks of constitutional dissonance, normative fragmentation, and judicial overextension, while advocating for a principled framework that accommodates both pluralism and universality. Ultimately, the paper argues for a jurisprudential model that synthesizes sovereign self-definition with cosmopolitan legal responsibility, advancing a more harmonized and rights-centric global constitutional order.