| Abstract: | This article examines how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council makes constitutional comparisons between ‘related’ constitutions that are or were within its jurisdiction, deploying its own precedents, as a pragmatic method of resolving idiosyncratic questions that arise across multiple constitutions. In particular, it considers the Committee's approach to the longstanding question of the interpretation of the opening section of Caribbean constitutional bills of rights, which has far reaching implications for the scope of constitutional protection of human rights. The JCPC's answer over time to this question reveals the fault lines for this supranational constitutional court as its jurisdiction peters out yet remains. The gaze of comparativism is very harsh as older constitutions are evaluated in light of newer ones and also as fossilised constitutional interpretations presented in earlier JCPC cases where the Committee no longer has jurisdiction are given new life in contemporary cases. |
