Entrenched constitutional principles and comparative constitutionalism

An analysis of the constitutional architecture of Argentina and China

Abstract

This essay is situated within the debate of comparative constitutional theory by analyzing the constitutional architectures of Argentina and China, using as its axis the notion of petrified contents (or principles of constitutional immutability). The comparison is based on the contrast between their models, a key criterion for comparative analysis: Argentina as a representative of the classical Western liberal constitutional tradition, and China as a paradigm of socialism with its own characteristics under a single-party system. The research shows that, although the Argentine tradition imposes formal legal limits through Bidart Campos’s doctrine, the Chinese Constitution presents functional equivalents (the leadership of the Communist Party of China) that serve the same purpose of ensuring the stability and permanence of its system. This analysis contributes to clarifying the universal applicability of categories of constitutional rigidity beyond the Western experience, highlighting the relevance of this study within the field of global constitutional studies.