Suchergebnisse

It is often assumed that Court of Justice interpretations of EU law are definitive and binding. However, this conflicts with conventional ideas about the trias politica, as well as with the principle of conferral, and rests on no more than the Court's own assertion. It also has harmful policy consequences, forcing national courts into constitutional resistance and, in claiming to fix the meaning of the Treaties, smothering Union politics. Interpretative pluralism, by contrast, insists on the possibility of diverging interpretations. That allows for wider participation in the construction of EU law, while retaining the integrity of Union law through commitment to shared texts and a balance of power between institutions. Institutional disagreements are reframed, not as conflicts between legal orders, but as conflicts about the meaning of a shared one. This approach is more profoundly integrative than the Court's top‐down approach, and also allows for greater diversity and experiment.

The federal government is now the lead responder when a major natural disaster strikes and the president frequently visits the scene, performing the role of consoler in chief. Both of these developments are relatively recent: before the 1960s, disaster response was dominated by subnational governments and the Red Cross, while the federal role was discharged mostly by mid‐level bureaucrats. This article argues that the Johnson presidency was a decisive turning point in terms of the first development and that Johnson also broke new ground by making a regular habit of visiting disaster scenes. However, it attributes the latter pattern more to LBJ's unique political approach than to external pressure, arguing that the expectation that presidents will provide emotional support to disaster victims has developed more recently.

AbstractThe European Union is unique among jurisdictions in having constitutionalized its policy goals and methods, by embedding these in the Treaties. As a result, the legislature is far more constrained in its activities than is the case in other constitutional orders. Yet the Treaties are indeterminate, and it is the Court of Justice which interprets and delimits them, and instructs the legislature on how and to what extent it may pursue them. There is, in substance, a principal–agent relationship between the Court and the EU legislature, enforceable by the Court's capacity to annul legislation contrary to its preferences. An examination of internal market legislation shows that indeed it consists of codification of prior case law. The judicial constraints on the EU legislature are sufficiently tight that the legislature is more akin to a subordinate implementing regulator than to an autonomous political policy‐maker.

The Research Handbook on Legal Pluralism and EU Law explores the phenomenon of overlapping legal systems within the European Union, the nature of their interactions, and how they deal with the difficult question of the legal hierarchy between them. The contributors reflect on the history, sociology and legal scholarship on constitutional and legal pluralism, and develop this further in the light of the challenges currently facing the EU. Addressing pluralism within policy areas such as EMU, migration, and external relations, and applying different perspectives - from the constitutionalist to the Foucauldian - this diverse collection of thinkers about EU law ask whether a pluralist perspective is part of the problem or part of the solution. Contributors offer both critical and positive assessments of the value of pluralist thinking in the EU whilst addressing major issues facing the EU now - Brexit, populism, migration, the Euro-crisis - and asking what lessons can be learned from and for pluralism. This Research Handbook will be invaluable reading for legal academics specialising in EU law, EU constitutional Law, legal theory and political scientists focused on legal aspects of EU integration. Students on advanced courses in EU law and EU constitutional law, as well as judges at the Court of Justice and higher national courts, will also find this stimulating reading