This work makes a contribution to the understanding of issues of comparative constitutionalism in emergent politics. Recurrent states of emergency in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh provide the background for a comparative examination of constitutional emergency powers, individual rights, and judicial review. This work examines the extent to which the Court in these countries has performed its expected role, identifies problems in approaches to interpretation which have been adopted, and suggests alternatives to constitutional interpretation and judicial review. The alternatives explored are drawn from contemporary western jurisprudence, including those of Ronald Dworkin and writers of the critical legal studies tradition. The juxtaposition of western jurisprudential development to issues of constitutionalism in the countries under survey is a bold attempt to seek some common ground in conceptualizing rights and techniques of juristic interpretation in western and eastern legal cultures. The theoretical framework of the study is well-perceived, the arguments convincing. This carefully researched work makes a valuable and scholarly contribution to the study of comparative constitutional law and jurisprudence.