Constitutional Protectionism and Adaptive Constitutionalism in the Age of Digitalization: Dialectics of Interaction, Contradictions, and Development Prospects

Digital transformation challenges the traditional foundations of national constitutionalism, creating a dialectical tension between adaptability and protectionism. The paper analyzes their interaction as two complementary strategies for ensuring the sustainability of the legal system: the first operates through a flexible interpretation of norms and institutional adaptation to digital challenges, the second — through the protection of the core of constitutional identity from normative diffusion. Through a comparative analysis of the legal practices of Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Russia, and China, the author identifies constitutional filtration as the key mechanism for synthesizing constitutional protectionism and adaptive constitutionalism. This mechanism consists of the selective and reflexive incorporation of external norms, including soft law norms and decisions of supranational courts, filtered through national constitutional values, procedural legitimacy, and the principle of proportionality. The effectiveness of modern legal systems hinges on their ability to engage in critical selection. German Identitätskontrolle (identity control), French constitutional review of the Avia law, Russian data localization requirements, and American regulatory pragmatism toward digital platforms each implement this mechanism through distinct approaches, yet they converge on a single outcome — the preservation of sovereignty without resorting to isolationism. The risks of legal relativism when using the terms «digital sovereignty» without judicial review and proportionality are highlighted. A model of reflexive legal immunity is proposed, where constitutional filtering becomes not just a technique, but a form of sustainable development of constitutional law in the era of algorithmic power. The results of the study substantiate the need for an interdisciplinary approach to digital constitutionalism, algorithmic justice, and platform sovereignty.

1. Belosludtsev O. S. Teoretiko-pravovaya priroda kontseptsii konstitutsionnoy identichnosti // Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. — 2021. — № 3 (142). — S. 39–62.

2. Medushevskiy A. N. Globalnyy konstitutsionalizm: protsessy integratsii i fragmentatsii v sozdanii novogo mirovogo poryadka. — M.: Direkt-Media, 2023. — 690 s.

3. Meleshko E. D., Slobozhanin A. V. Moralno-pravovye problemy tsifrovizatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva: analiticheskiy obzor nauchno-issledovatelskikh tsentrov // Gumanitarnye vedomosti TGPU imeni L.N. Tolstogo. — 2023. — № 4 (48). — S. 52–58.

4. Poyarkov S. Yu. Adaptivnyy konstitutsionalizm: kontseptualnye osnovaniya i institutsionalnye mekhanizmy v usloviyakh politiko-pravovoy turbulentnosti // Administrativnoe i munitsipalnoe pravo. — 2025. — № 3. — S. 67–85.

5. Vinogradova E. V. Zakreplenie v konstitutsii v kachestve konstitutsionnoy tsennosti rossiyskoy konstitutsionnoy identichnosti // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta imeni S.Yu. Vitte. Seriya 2, Yuridicheskie nauki. — 2021. — № 3 (29). — S. 26–29.

6. Loewenstein K. Verfassungsrecht und Verfassungsrealitat: Beitrage zur Ontologie der Verfassungen // Archiv des offentlichen Rechts (AoR). — 1951/1952. — Bd. 77. — H. 4. — S. 387–435.

7. Anagnostaras G. Activating Ultra Vires Review: The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Weiss // European Papers, European Journal of Law and Integration. — 2021. — Vol. 6. — No. 1. — P. 801–829.

8. Bogdandy A. von, Wolfrum R., Bernstorff J. von, Dann P., Goldmann M. The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions: Advancing International Institutional Law. — Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2010. — 1008 p.

9. Bogdandy A. von, Schill S. Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty // Common Market Law Review. — 2011. — Vol. 48. — No. 5. — P. 1417–1454.

10. Celeste E. Digital Constitutionalism: A Socio-Legal Approach // European Data Protection Law Review. — 2024. — Vol. 10. — No. 2. — P. 156–173.

11. Dixon R. The New Responsive Constitutionalism // International Journal of Constitutional Law. — 2023. — Vol. 21. — No. 2. — P. 419–445.

12. Golia A. Jr. The Critique of Digital Constitutionalism // Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper. — 2022. — No. 2022-13.

13. Hirschl R. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. — Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

14. Jancic D. Caveats from Karlsruhe and Berlin: whither Democracy after Lisbon? // Columbia Journal of European Law. — 2010. — Vol. 16. — No. 3. — P. 337–385.

15. Palchetti P. Judgment 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court // Questions of International Law. — 2015. — Vol. 44. — P. 44–47.

16. Rosenfeld M. The Identity of the Constitutional Subject. — Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

17. Rosenfeld M. The Identity of the Constitutional Subject: Selfhood, Citizenship, Culture, and Community. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. — 326 p.

18. Tushnet M. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law. — Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.