Modern constitutional law increasingly operates in a complex legal environment shaped by globalization, supranational integration, technological development and geopolitical instability. In this context, the traditional understanding of constitutional law as a closed national legal system is being gradually replaced by a postmodern constitutional paradigm emphasizing legal pluralism, interpretative flexibility and the dynamic interaction between different legal orders. The purpose of the article is to analyze how the postmodern understanding of the constitution influences the interpretation of state institutions’ discretionary powers, particularly in the areas of national security and foreign policy, and to determine the limits of constitutional judicial review in these sensitive spheres of public governance. The research is based on doctrinal, systematic and comparative legal methods. Particular attention is paid to the jurisprudence of constitutional courts (US, Germany and Lithuania) and the interaction between constitutional principles such as the rule of law, proportionality, separation of powers and effective judicial protection. The article demonstrates that modern constitutional law increasingly functions as jurisprudential law, where constitutional norms acquire concrete meaning through judicial interpretation. Constitutional courts therefore play a crucial role in balancing competing constitutional values while ensuring that the discretionary powers of political institutions remain within constitutional limits. It is concluded that even in highly sensitive policy areas such as national security and foreign relations, discretionary powers of state institutions cannot be immune from constitutional scrutiny. However, judicial review in such cases must remain restrained and focused on verifying the legality, proportionality, procedural fairness and absence of manifest error rather than substituting political decision-making.

1. Alexy R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford University Press 2002).
2. Barak A, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge University Press 2012) 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293
3. Barak A, The Judge in a Democracy (Princeton University Press 2006).
4. Grimm D, Constitutionalism: Past, Present and Future (Oxford University Press 2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766124.001.0001
5. Habermas J, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (MIT Press 1996). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
6. Stone Sweet A, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (Oxford University Press 2000). https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297718.001.0001
7. Strauss D A, The Living Constitution (Oxford University Press 2010).
8. Teubner G, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization (Oxford University Press 2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644674.001.0001
9. Bogdandy von A, Schill S, 'Overcoming Absolute Primacy: Respect for National Identity under the Lisbon Treaty' [2011] 48 Common Market Law Review 1417. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011057
10. Gedmintaitė A, Masnevaitė E, Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė J, 'Valstybės valdžios aktų imunitetas Lietuvos administracinėje justicijoje' [2025] 135 Teisė 25 https://doi.org/10.15388/Teise.2025.135.1
11. Ipsen J, '"Lüth" und die Folgen' [2022] 77(3) Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 613-619. https://doi.org/10.33196/zoer202203061301
12. Jochum G, 'Die Grundrechte als Objektive Wertordnung und was daraus geworden ist' [2022] 77(3) Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 621-625. https://doi.org/10.33196/zoer202203062101
13. Kumm M, 'Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review' [2007] 1(2) European Journal of Legal Studies 153-183.
14. Poiares Maduro M, 'Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism' [2007] 1(2) European Journal of Legal Studies 137-152.
15. Stone Sweet A, Mathews J, 'Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism' [2008] 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 72.
16. Walker N, 'The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism' [2002] 65(3) Modern Law Review 317 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00383.
17. Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė J, 'Ar valstybės valdžios aktai turi imunitetą nuo teisminės peržiūros: sankirta tarp konstitucinės ir administracinės justicijos' (23.10.2025) <https://www.teise.pro/index.php/2025/10/23/j-pauzaite-kulvinskiene-ar-valstybes-valdzios-aktai-turi-imunitetanuo-teismines-perziuros-sankirta-tarp-konstitucines-ir-administracines-justicijos> (accessed 15.02.2026).