Abstract
Since Austin and his work on performative sentences, it has been commonly accepted that language is no longer used only to describe a real fact, but also to act and create one’s own reality. If law is first and foremost a language before being a norm, the latter is likely to depend, both in its nature and its force, upon specific speech production. Such is the starting point of the research on the performativity of the constitutional language, a kind of performativity which can be regarded as language-specific for a particular type of law. Thus, its specificity may come from a speech act proper to constitutional statements and creating a situation which may only exist by it. This creative capacity of language shows the constitutional language as a language which constitutes a world, not simply to control it, but rather to order it legally. The constitutional norm appears to be a different one, full of atypical normativeness. This appertains to Searle’s distinction between constitutive and normative rules. In fine, the constitutional rule, therefore, calls attention to the inferior rule by its constitutive, impassable, and unbreakable dimension which the constitutional judge accepts and maintains through his jurisprudence.