Comparative Constitutional Justice adopts an innovative approach to constitutional justice. From a methodological perspective, it assumes that it is impossible to apply an absolute criterion of classification, which depends on the purposes comparative scholars aim to achieve when delivering their own taxonomies. A broad definition of constitutional justice is adopted, which revolves around the following taxonomy: 1) the legality of norms, 2) the conformity of actors’ behaviours with the distribution of sovereign powers and 3) the compliance with international covenants on human rights. This tripartite classification complements a further criterion based on the graduation in the intensity of this review. This indeed ranges from a minimum scrutiny limited to legislation (‘nomocratic review’) to a maximum scrutiny encompassing all state activities (‘pantocratic review’). The proposed classification will provide readers with a critical toolbox when it comes to examining the pluralism which characterises the systems of constitutional adjudication around the world.