Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (42)
- Part of a Book (30)
- Editorship book (4)
- Working Paper (4)
- Book (3)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (83)
- Multiple languages (1)
Keywords
- Social policy (2)
- Academic discourse (1)
- Accountability (1)
- Charles Sabel (1)
- Constitutional Dialogue (1)
- Constitutional balance (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- EC law (1)
- EU Competence (1)
- EU Economic Governance (1)
This chapter provides the volumes general conceptual framework. It begins by addressing why new approaches to accountability are needed, arguing that accountability literature has reached a stalemate as a result of an impasse between deductive and inductive approaches to accountability in the EU. It then argues that overcoming the stalemate requires developing a generalised framework of what accountability is for, deriving four accountability goods to be used in subsequent chapters. The chapter argues that each of the goods can be delivered in procedural or substantive ways, focusing either on the process by which decisions are made or the substantive worth of decisions themselves. The chapter concludes by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both varieties of accountability before mapping out how the concepts will be applied across policy fields and institutions in subsequent chapters.
Making sense of the “incomprehensible”: The PSPP Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court
(2020)
Judicialization - and the influence of trans-national Courts - seems a perfect object of study for inter-disciplinary research and a potential spur for methodological innovation. In the case of the European Courts, however, this chapter argues that divides between law and political science have impeded the developments of accounts of judicialization able to take both the legal and political aspects of judicial activity seriously. The chapter discusses sociological institutionalism as an alternative approach to judicialisation. By stressing the importance of legal norms in structuring the 'space' for legal agency while abstaining from the assumption that norms apply equally in all situations, sociological institutionalism provides an inter- disciplinary framework for the study of Courts able to act as a bridge between both disciplines. As the chapter will conclude, while institutionalist approaches are complex and time-consuming, their focus on the language, ideas and cultural assumptions of actors and institutions provide a compelling method for the study of judicial behaviour.
This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of interdisciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.
Constitutional Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures in the European Union: Prospects and Limits
(2013)
The concept of 'constitutional dialogue' has become a focal point of US and Canadian public law scholarship. This concept sees judicial review not as a check on majority preferences but instead as part of a deliberation between the legislative and judicial branches over how constitutional commitments and general political objectives can be integrated. This article will explore the prospects and limits of developing the dialogue concept in the context of the present-day European Union (EU). The article will present a two-part argument: While the EU's political and legal diversity make the idea of a 'shared responsibility' for constitutional interpretation between judges and policy-makers normatively attractive, the existing institutional structure of the Union limits the incentives necessary for legal and political actors to constitutionally engage.
While scholarly writing has dealt with the role of law in the process of European integration, so far it has shed little light on the lawyers and communities of lawyers involved in that process. Law has been one of the most thoroughly investigated aspects of the European integration process, and EU law has become a well-established academic discipline, with the emergence more recently of an impressive body of legal and political science literature on 'European law in context'. Yet this field has been dominated by an essentially judicial narrative, focused on the role of the European courts, underestimating in the process the multifaceted roles lawyers and law play in the EU polity, notably the roles they play beyond the litigation arena. This volume seeks to promote a deeper understanding of European law as a social and political phenomenon, presenting a more complete view of the European legal field by looking beyond the courts, and at the same time broadening the scholarly horizon by exploring the ways in which European law is actually made. To do this it describes the roles of the great variety of actors who stand behind legal norms and decisions, bringing together perspectives from various disciplines (law, political science, political sociology and history), to offer a global multi-disciplinary reassessment of the role of 'law' and 'lawyers' in the European integration process. (About the Book)
This book delves into the rationale, components of, and responses to accusations of judicial activism at the European Court of Justice.
Detailed chapters from academics, practitioners and stakeholders bring diverse perspectives on a range of factors – from access rules to institutional design and to substantive functions – influencing the European Court’s political role. Each of the contributing authors invites the reader to approach the debate on the role of the Court in terms of a constantly evolving set of interactions between the EU judiciary, the European and national political spheres, as well as a multitude of other actors vested in competing legitimacy claims. The book questions the political role of the Court as much as it stresses the opportunities – and corresponding responsibilities – that the Court’s case law offers to independent observers, political institutions and civil society organisations.
Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice will appeal to researchers and graduate students as well as to EU and national officials.
(About the Book)