随着互联网的广泛应用，国际社会对于互联网基础资源治理的关切程度日益提升，同时也对现行互联网名称与数字地址分配公司（ICANN）框架下的多利益相关方治理模式的实效表示担忧。治理正当性一直是全球治理问题中的重要概念之一，也是保障治理实效的重要标准。为此，法学界在寻求现行互联网基础资源治理的正当性基础这一问题上进行了积极的探索研究。在各种学说与观点中，贡塔·托依布纳（Gunther Teubner）结合自创生系统论所提出的社会宪治理论是极具代表性的理论之一。其认为，现行互联网基础资源治理体制已经完成了自我宪法化，并产生了满足其提出的“宪法属性四项判断标准”的宪法规范。而这种自我宪法化一方面可以保证互联网基础资源治理体制在体制内形成自治，另一方面也可以为其自治提供正当性基础。 但是，托依布纳对于互联网基础资源治理体制已经完成了自我宪法化的这一论断可能过分乐观了。首先，其提出了判断规范的宪法属性的四项判断标准，但是其作为判断标准的合理性存疑。其次，即使按照托依布纳提出的四项判断标准对其所认定的互联网基础资源治理体制中的宪法性规范进行检验，这些所谓的宪法性规范也并不满足四项判断标准的实质性要求。 对此，本文将主要通过规范分析、文献研究、比较研究等研究方法，旨在对托依布纳提出的规范的“宪法属性四项判断标准”的确立提出质疑，寻找出部分标准在确立过程中逻辑不自洽的问题。同时，将其提出的四项判断标准的平行判断结构重构为递进式/分层式的判断结构。并进一步利用重构后的判断结构检验互联网基础资源治理体制中的规范是否满足宪法规范的全部判断标准，以此来判断互联网基础资源治理体制是否实现了自我宪治化。 经过进一步的分析、考查和检验可以发现，互联网基础资源治理并未如托依布纳所判断的那样已经完成了宪法化进程。托依布纳所提出的互联网基础资源治理体制试图通过宪法化实现自治并以此作为理论依据为其自治提供正当性基础的思路，在目前看来依旧是一种难以被落实的学术构想。

With the widespread use of the internet, the international community’s concern is growing for the internet critical resources governance, as well as the concerns for the effectiveness of the current multi-stakeholder governance model under the framework of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Legitimacy has always been an important concept in global governance issues and a critical criterion to ensure effectiveness in its enforcement. Therefore, the legal community has actively explored and researched the legitimacy basis of the current governance of internet critical resources. After comprehensively examining various theories and viewpoints, it is found that Gunther Teubner‘s theory of Societal Constitutionalism, combined with his autopoietic system theory, may be able to provide a “peace of mind” for the international community. He believes that the current governance system for internet critical resources has completed its self-constitutionalization and produced “constitutional norms” that meet the four criteria for constitutional attributes he proposed. This self-constitutionalization not only ensures that the internet critical resources governance forms autonomy within the system but also provides a legitimacy basis for its autonomy.However, Teubner’s view that the governance system for internet critical resources has completed its self-constitutionalization may be overly optimistic. First, the reasonableness of his four criteria for constitutional attributes as determining standard is questionable. Secondly, even if the so-called constitutional norms in the governance system for internet critical resources identified by Teubner are tested according to his four criteria, these norms do not meet the substantive requirement of this test.In this regard, this paper questions the establishment of Teubner’s four criteria for constitutional attributes as norms through normative analysis, literature research, comparative study, and other research methods, seeking to find the logical inconsistencies in some of the standards during the establishment process. Meanwhile, the parallel determination structure of his four criteria for constitutional attributes is restructured into a progressive/hierarchical structure. Furthermore, the reconstructed determination structure is used to test whether the norms in the governance system for internet critical resources meet all the judgment criteria of constitutional norms to judge whether the governance system for internet critical resources has achieved its self-constitutionalization.Through further analysis, examination, and testing, it can be found that the governance of internet critical resources has not completed the constitutionalization process as proposed by Teubner. His attempt to provide a legitimacy basis for the governance of internet critical resources by achieving autonomy through constitutionalization is still an academic imagination at present that is difficult to implement.