General Characteristics of the Unamendable Norms of the Constitution

Abstract

The article considers the phenomenon of unchanging provisions of the constitution, their evolution, different classifications. Immutable provisions are considered narrowly – as provisions that are not subject to any changes, as well as criteria (principles), which the changes made should notcontradict. Synonymous concepts denoting immutability are considered – absolute entrenchment, the clause of eternity, stone provisions. The idea of supra-constitutionality, however, is seen as a different phenomenon from the unchanging provisions of the constitution. It is claimed that thematerial (substantive, substantive) requirements for change were not common from the beginning (although the situation has changed quite a few centuries). As practice shows, immutability can be not only formally established in a positive constitutional text. Existing examples lead us to thinkabout the important role of judges who interpret a positive constitutional text. In this case, the constituent power speaks not only through the positive text of the constitution, but also through the judges (for the Kelzen model of constitutional control – the judges of the constitutional court).The unchanging provisions themselves can be changed, as evidenced by relevant examples from practice (albeit isolated). In addition, history knows examples of departure from the positively enshrined immutable provisions (in the case of a rupture of constitutional continuity). Even if theprovisions remain unchanged, there may be no specific jurisdiction to monitor compliance. The absence of explicit immutability does not mean that the practice has not formed implicit criteria of immutability. However, even combined explicit and implicit immutability can still not claimuniversalism in constitutional law.