Suchergebnisse

Tribalization is a global megatrend in today's world. The election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote, populist movements like Catalan separatism - together with democratic backsliding in Central and Eastern Europe - are all examples of tribalization. Fuelled by anti-globalism and identity politics, tribalization is drawing up the drawbridge to the world. It is putting cultural differences before dialogue, collaboration and universal liberal values. But tribalism is a dangerous road to go down. With it, argues Marlene Wind, we have put democracy itself in danger. Tribalism is not just about being pro-nation, anti-EU and anti-global. It is in many instances a bigger and more fundamental movement that casts aside the liberal democratic principles we once held in common. At a time when former defenders of liberal values are increasingly silent or have even joined the growing chorus of tribalists, this book is a wakeup call. Drawing on a wide range of examples from the UK and the US to Spain, Hungary and Poland, Wind highlights the dangers of identity politics and calls on people to stand up for democracy and the rule of law.

"Most studies describing this evolution have either drawn on classical legalistic approaches (see e.g. Aust and Nolte 2016; Keller and Stone Sweet 2008 or Mackenzie, Romano and Shany 2010) or been developed by constitutionalists?often from political science and sociology?preoccupied with mapping the global development and influence of ICs (see e.g. Slaughter 2000; Slaughter 2004; Slaughter and Burke-White 2006; Romano, Alter and Shany 2013 and Alter 2014). While the more classical legal scholarship has been predominated by accounts that outline principles and application of IC case law in national courts, constitutionalists have focused on actual practice, describing the evolution and functioning of ICs more broadly. What has unified both strands of research, however, is the often implicit description of a universal and unidirectional strengthening of legalization and judicialization in global affairs. The present volume puts the question in a different way. We do not from the outset normatively assume that ICs are important and powerful actors or that national actors without further ado cite, embrace or enter into a constructive dialogue with these supranational bodies. Rather what this book does is to ask?from a multidisciplinary perspective?how and to what degree do ICs actually influence, impose constraints on and create loyalty from those actors involved? It is our claim that rather little research has been occupied with the actual effects on the ground for those national courts, political institutions and citizens who are formally governed by the increased judicialization"--

Doomsdays preachers suggested that Brexit and Trump would mean the end of the liberal world order as we know it and thus the end of the EU. The research presented here suggests the opposite. Not only have Europeans turned their back to populism by voting yes to reforms and pro-EU-parties and governments in different member states over the past months, but Brexit and Trump also seems to have given a complete new momentum to the European project. This article demonstrates why Brexit cannot be generalized to the rest of the continent but is the result of a complicated and special British conception of what it means to be a sovereign state in the 21st century. Moreover and paradoxically, surveys show that the greatest fear among Europeans today is not more European integration but right wing populism and European Disunion.

Although Scandinavians are often celebrated as the vanguards of human rights and international law, we know little about whether courts and judges in these countries have embraced those international courts and conventions that they themselves helped establish after the Second World War. This article presents original and comprehensive data on three Scandinavian courts' citation practice. It demonstrates that not only do Scandinavian Supreme Courts engage surprisingly little with international law, but also that there is great variation in the degree to which they have domesticated international law and courts by citing their case law. Building on this author's previous research, it is argued that Norway sticks out as much more engaged internationally due to a solid judicial review tradition at the national level. It is also argued that Scandinavian legal positivism has influenced a much more reticent approach to international case law than would normally be expected from this region in the world.

Although Scandinavians are often celebrated as the vanguards of human rights and international law, we know little about whether courts and judges in these countries have embraced those international courts and conventions that they themselves helped establish after the Second World War. This article presents original and comprehensive data on three Scandinavian courts' citation practice. It demonstrates that not only do Scandinavian Supreme Courts engage surprisingly little with international law, but also that there is great variation in the degree to which they have domesticated international law and courts by citing their case law. Building on this author's previous research, it is argued that Norway sticks out as much more engaged internationally due to a solid judicial review tradition at the national level. It is also argued that Scandinavian legal positivism, has influenced a much more reticent approach to international case law than would normally be expected from this region in the world.

Although Scandinavians are often celebrated as the vanguards of human rights and international law, we know very little about whether courts and judges in these countries have embraced those international courts and conventions that they themselves helped establish after the Second World War. This article presents original and comprehensive data on three Scandinavian court's ciation practice. It demonstrates that not only do Scandinavian Supreme Courts engage surprisingly little with international law, but also that there is great variation in the degree to which they have domesticated international law and Courts by citing their case law. ; Although Scandinavians are often celebrated as the vanguards of human rights and international law, we know little about whether courts and judges in these countries have embraced those international courts and conventions that they themselves helped establish after the Second World War. This article presents original and comprehensive data on three Scandinavian courts' citation practice. It demonstrates that not only do Scandinavian Supreme Courts engage surprisingly little with international law, but also that there is great variation in the degree to which they have domesticated international law and courts by citing their case law. Building on this author's previous research, it is argued that Norway sticks out as much more engaged internationally due to a solid judicial review tradition at the national level. It is also argued that Scandinavian legal positivism has influenced a much more reticent approach to international case law than would normally be expected from this region in the world.

The Commission ultimately threatened to take Denmark to court for breaking not only Schengen but also the European Union's rules on free movement. [.]the whole dispute enjoyed massive media coverage internationally. A simple Google search for the words 'the Danish Schengen crisis' shows just how much attention the debacle attracted in the international media, with no less than 767,000 hits.10 The present analysis will be centred on a rather detailed analysis of what actually happened in Danish politics when the Danish border control agreement was negotiated, but it will also focus on the strong reactions from Germany, the Commission and the broader international environment.