Abstract
Abstract Despite the clear clue given by Kim L. Scheppele as to the shortcomings of governance checklists, it is surprising that comparative constitutional lawyers have not yet followed it up. In fact, what Scheppele hinted at is that the methodologies we have used so far fall short of detecting the interaction effect of the particular components; this is why we need new methodologies and new ways of seeing. To address this, this article will incorporate some tools, having already taken hold in legal philosophy, into the methods discussions in comparative constitutional law in particular and comparative law in general. Upon benefiting from the distinction between internal and external points of view and showing how hermeneutical one differs from the others, the article will make a discursive analysis of the 2010 constitutional amendment in Turkey through the lenses of these three points of view.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
