Abstract
Cambodia's Constitution, promulgated in September 1993, was to be the foundation of a transition to liberal, multiparty democracy. Yet, despite the document's seeming commitment to those very principles, constitutional provisions are frequently used to undermine liberal rule of law and to impose restrictions on political processes, freedoms, and rights. Focusing on the events of 2016–2017, including the jailing of opposition politicians, controversial legal reforms, and the dissolution of the country's foremost opposition party, this article demonstrates how authoritarian practices in Cambodia are framed in terms of adherence – even fidelity – to the Constitution. Further, it explores how ideas of ‘stability’ and ‘law and order’ often elide with those of rule of law in discourses and practices that simultaneously exalt and hollow out the normative power of the Constitution. This article posits that a socio-legal approach that pays particular attention to discourse can shed new light on the empirical fact of authoritarian constitutionalism, but also the processes of meaning-making that accompany, facilitate, and legitimize its practice. Far from merely a sham, then, Cambodia's Constitution – like many others – is imbricated in a complex web of contestation and legitimation that extends far beyond the walls of any courtroom.
As You Like It: European Union Normative Power in the European Neighbourhood Policy
