The American constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman has recently suggested that the UK Parliament should call a constitutional convention to draft a written constitution that can be put to voters in a national referendum after a two-year drafting period. In this article, I examine a number of points of disjoint between these proposals and Ackerman’s own, “dualist” theory of constitutional change, developed from an intriguingly novel reading of American constitutional history. While this theory advocates generation-spanning, multi-institutional processes of constitutional change, Ackerman’s UK proposals involve a more fleeting and nationalistic approach, with unitary majorities apparently reigning supreme. The question is: can this disjoint between Ackerman 1 and Ackerman 2 be justified as Ackerman’s attempt to work within the contours of the UK’s constitutional culture, traditionally conceived? Or might Ackerman’s unfiltered American theory have something important to offer a UK audience today, given the divisions that the Brexit process has revealed in British society between opposing, traditional and non-traditional understandings of British sovereignty and democracy?

中文翻译：

---

伦敦的美国法学家：布鲁斯·阿克曼 (Bruce Ackerman) 的英国宪政改革提案与布鲁斯·阿克曼 (Bruce Ackerman) 的宪政理论

美国宪法理论家布鲁斯·阿克曼（Bruce Ackerman）最近建议英国议会召开制宪会议，起草成文宪法，经过两年的起草期后，可以在全民公投中提交给选民。在这篇文章中，我考察了这些提议与阿克曼自己的宪法变革“二元论”理论之间的一些脱节点，后者是从对美国宪法历史的有趣新颖的解读中发展起来的。虽然这一理论主张跨代、多机构的宪法变革过程，但阿克曼的英国提议涉及更短暂和民族主义的方法，统一多数显然占主导地位。问题是：阿克曼 1 和阿克曼 2 之间的这种脱节能否被证明是阿克曼试图在传统上构想的英国宪法文化的轮廓内工作？或者，鉴于英国脱欧进程在英国社会中暴露出对英国主权和民主的传统和非传统理解之间的分歧，阿克曼未经过滤的美国理论是否可以为今天的英国观众提供一些重要的东西？