Function Follows Form

How are constitutional amendments codified from a comparative perspective, i. e. how can one determine from a given constitutional text whether, when and where it was amended in the past? These questions have so far not received much attention from constitutional scholars. Unjustly - so the thesis of this article - because the codification model is neither of only aesthetic interest nor a mere expression of the prevailing constitutional theory in a given country (form follows function). Rather, the respective codification style has far-reaching consequences for constitutional interpretation, constitutional theory, and the public perception of the constitution (function follows form). This comparative study tries to explain and defend this claim. It takes into account not only the constitutional systems of the United States of America, Germany and Austria, which are the centre of the analysis, but also the constitutions of India, Mexico, Israel, Ireland, Canada, Taiwan, Italy and Switzerland among others.