The article provides a comparative legal analysis of limitations on amendments to the constitution. In constitutional theory, they are referred to as eternity clauses. The purpose of establishing them is obvious and stems from the very nature of the constitution, the need to ensure its stability and protection. At the same time, the scope of such restrictions varies in European constitutional practice. The author has found that the most numerous group among them are those that prohibit changing the content of individual constitutional provisions. As a rule, fundamental constitutional principles (values) cannot be subject to revision, in particular the form of government, the form of state structure, the independence and territorial integrity of the state, the principle of the rule of law, popular sovereignty, human and civil rights and freedoms, pluralism, the state (official) language, etc. One of the most common constitutional prohibitions is the prohibition on changing the form of government and the form of state structure (the constitutions of France, Greece, Italy, Romania, Portugal, Germany, etc.). A significant number of constitutions contain provisions on the impossibility of abolishing or restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms (the constitutions of Germany, Ukraine, Moldova, Portugal, etc.). Another group of prohibitions is related to time limits. Some constitutions (Portugal, Greece) establish a specific period of time during which their text cannot be amended (regardless of the subject of the revision). It is stated that such a «break» is necessary to ensure the stable functioning of state institutions, to avoid hasty and potentially destabilizing reforms, and to limit the influence of political circumstances. The article also mentions situational restrictions on amending the constitution. These mainly include extraordinary events during which the authorities must ensure the stable functioning of the state and society. These include, in particular, martial law, a state of emergency, siege, encroachment on territorial integrity, etc. Similar provisions are contained in the constitutions of Ukraine, Belgium, France, Estonia, Poland, Moldova, etc.
T. V. Koval (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: