COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE WORLD'S COUNTRIES: COMMON PRINCIPLES AND NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Résumé fourni par la source

This article provides a comparative legal analysis of the constitutional systems of selected countries with the purpose of identifying their common principles, institutional similarities, and distinctive national characteristics. The study examines the constitutional experience of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and the Republic of Uzbekistan. Particular attention is devoted to the constitutional regulation of popular sovereignty, separation of powers, human rights and freedoms, forms of government, territorial organization of the state, constitutional supremacy, judicial review, and mechanisms for constitutional amendment. The research is based on comparative legal, formal-legal, systemic, historical, and institutional methods. The analysis demonstrates that contemporary constitutions, despite significant differences in historical development, political traditions, legal families, and institutional arrangements, increasingly share a number of universal constitutional principles, including human dignity, equality before the law, protection of fundamental rights, rule of law, popular participation, accountability of public authorities, and constitutional limitation of state power. At the same time, the implementation of these principles differs considerably according to national circumstances. The United States demonstrates a presidential and federal constitutional model with a strong system of judicial review; the United Kingdom represents an uncodified constitutional model based on statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and historical constitutional documents; France combines a strong presidency with a semi-presidential institutional structure; Germany emphasizes human dignity, federalism, constitutional democracy, and constitutional adjudication; Japan represents a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary government and a distinctive pacifist constitutional tradition; India combines federalism with parliamentary government and an extensive catalogue of constitutional rights; while Uzbekistan’s contemporary constitutional framework emphasizes democratic, legal, social, and secular statehood, human rights, social responsibility of the state, and the supremacy and direct effect of the Constitution. The study concludes that comparative constitutional analysis should not be limited to identifying formal similarities between constitutional texts but should also evaluate how constitutional principles operate within particular political, legal, social, and historical environments.