In the United States the best accounts of constitutional theory, such as Richard Fallon's and Phillip Bobbitt's, are pluralist, in the sense that all modalities (in Bobbitt's terms) are permissible in judicial and other forms of constitutional practice. I have argued against excessive concern about methodology in comparative constitutional law, in favor of a pragmatic pluralism. The book on which we are commenting can be understood as an exemplar of pluralism in constitutional theory, with some authors [some to be discussed a bit individually] defending specific methodological approaches, others defending pluralism. That seems to me the most intellectually defensible stance with respect to constitutional theory generally: individual commitments to specific approaches, eclecticism or pluralism for the field as a whole.
We look forward to welcoming you on July 3-5, 2023 for our Annual Conference entitled "Islands and Ocean: Public Law in a Plural World." The conference will take place at the Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand. We will be announcing more details about the conference soon, including financial support to early career and global south scholars!