Conceptual boundaries of constitutional control and its distinction from constitutional supervision: a doctrinal and comparative legal approach

the article examines the legal essence of constitutional control and differentiates it from constitutional supervision within the framework of modern legal doctrine and comparative constitutional analysis. The aim of the study is to clarify the conceptual boundaries of these categories, to demonstrate their functional role in a constitutional state, and to overcome existing terminological ambiguities. The relevance of the research stems from the fact that constitutional control is not confined to the formal verification of normative acts but operates as a strategic safeguard of constitutional supremacy, democratic governance, and the protection of fundamental rights. The methodological framework combines the comparative legal method (analysis of different state models), the systemic approach (identifying institutional interrelations), the teleological method (explaining the purposes and functional meaning of constitutional norms), and the doctrinalanalytical approach (substantiating theoretical concepts). The findings indicate that constitutional control functions as a binding mechanism producing enforceable legal consequences, whereas constitutional supervision remains advisory and non-binding. This distinction highlights the strategic importance of constitutional control in ensuring legal stability, maintaining the balance of powers, and safeguarding the rule of law. The outcomes bear theoretical and practical significance for the Azerbaijani legal system as well as for comparative constitutional studies in post-Soviet and European jurisdictions.