UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

Constitutionalization of Happiness: A Global and Comparative Inquiry

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.1017/glj.2023.84

Authors

Trevor T W Wan

Reported year

2023

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:16:04.323191+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:16:04.323191+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

Harvard University

Documentary abstract — original language

Abstract Happiness and well-being are now explicitly enshrined in a myriad of national constitutions. As of 2022, the terms “happiness” and “well-being” form part of the constitutional lexicon of more than 20 and 110 states respectively. These “happiness provisions” epitomize the phenomenon of the “constitutionalization of happiness,” which denotes the process of elevating happiness to the constitutional echelon, thereby bearing discernible legal and political implications. An audit of all happiness provisions reveals that they boil down to three categories—happiness as a national objective, happiness as a policy paradigm, and the pursuit of happiness as a human right. The meaning and jurisprudential landscape of happiness provisions within a specific constitutional framework is molded by, on top of the semantic and structural configuration, a dynamic interplay among three factors, which include the indigenous and socio-cultural conception of happiness of that state, interpretations put forward by judges and other constitutional actors, and transnational influences such as the migration of constitutional ideas and jurisprudence. This article draws upon an extensive array of case studies, covering among others Bhutan, Bolivia, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, and Nigeria, to illustrate the breadth and diversity that enliven the universe of happiness provisions.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W4388880451

DOI

10.1017/glj.2023.84

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

article

Natural entities mentioned

Landscape

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2 · Record 3

• Document · http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.84
• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.84
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W4388880451

Documented bibliographic relations

Source-declared references and links; they do not establish legal support or UGLC qualification. Up to 20 outgoing references are displayed.

• openalex:w2085815345 · CITES
• openalex:w2253485966 · CITES

0 incoming references within the detected corpus

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.