“Preventing an Appeal to the Sword:” The Role of the Judiciary in American Federalism and European Integration
The article explores and compares the role of the judiciary in US constitutionalism and European integration. The development of these two legal orders has raised very similar constitutional problems and the purpose of the inquiry is to highlight the similar legal solutions devised by the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. Four aspects have been singled out to show the importance of constitutional adjudication by courts in both experiences: the foundations of judicial review, supremacy of federal/Community law over state legislation, the protection of fundamental rights, and the dialogue among constitutional courts.
The European Court and national courts -- doctrine and jurisprudence : legal change in its social context
Part 1 National reports: report on Belgium, Herve Bribosa report on France, Jens Plotner report on Germany, Juliane Kokott the Italian Constitutional Court and the relationship between the Italian legal system and the European Union, Marta Cartabia report on Italy, P. Ruggeri Laderchi report on the Netherlands, Monica Claes and Bruno de Witte report on the United Kingdom, P.P. Craig. Part 2 Comparative analyses: explaining national court acceptance of European Court jurisprudence - a critical evaluation of theories of legal integration, Karen Alter the role of national courts in the process of European integration - accounting for judicial preferences and constraints, Walter Mattli and Anne-Marie Slaughter sovereignty and European integration - the weight of legal tradition, Bruno de Witte constitutional dialogues in the European Community, Alec Stone Sweet constitutional or international? the foundations of the community legal order and the question of judicial kompetenz-kompetenz, J.J.H. Weiler and Ulrich R. Haltern epilogue - the European Courts of Justice - beyond "beyond doctrine" or the legitimacy crisis of European constitutionalism, J.H.H. Weiler.
The Future of Liberal Legal Scholarship
The following commentary is a reconstructive criticism1 written from the perspective of two liberals2 concerned about the future of "legal liberalism." We present our views as a commentary to emphasize their preliminary character; they represent our current assessment of where liberals stand and where they might redirect their energies. In Part I, we outline the reasons for believing that there is cause for alarm, though not resignation, in the liberal legal community. We also define the contours of what we mean by "liberal legal scholarship." In Part II, we discuss how conservatives have managed, with varying degrees of success, to frame the nature of public law discourse in the 1980s, and how liberals have reacted, and are likely to continue