Sovereignty's trajectory within the bounds of modern democratic constitutionalism

This chapter explores the advantages and drawbacks of constitution-based sovereignty—i.e., sovereignty as designed in a modern democratic constitution and/or consistent with the four key pillars of such a constitution. These pillars are: 1) limitation of the powers of government; 2) adherence to the rule of law; 3) protection of fundamental rights; and 4) maintenance of an adequate level of democracy. Constitution-based sovereignty replaces the divinely prescribed sovereignty enjoyed by the absolute monarch with sovereignty by the people, the nation, or the state, or else all three of them. Constitution-based sovereignty has been historically tied to the nation-state, and the first two parts of the chapter deal respectively with the theoretical and legal implications consistent with that. Part Three, on the other hand, addresses the question of whether constitution-based sovereignty can adapt in light of post-1945 developments that have weakened nation-state constitutionalism through multiplication of supra-national legal regimes. Do the establishment of the UN, universal and regional human rights regimes, globalization, the EU constitution-like multilateral treaties, and worldwide schemes of segmented regulation, such as that of the WTO, undermine constitution-based sovereignty? Or can the latter adjust through adaptation and reform? What about the more recent eruption of right wing populism and illiberalism that purport to abide by constitutional strictures while in fact dismantling them from within? Do these proliferating instances of populism and illiberalism foretell the death knell of constitution-based sovereignty? Or will they in the end amount to temporary deviations from constitution-based sovereignty ultimate post nation-state viability?