首页> 外文学位 >Legislative responses to supranational courts: The German Bundestag and the European Court of Justice.
【24h】

Legislative responses to supranational courts: The German Bundestag and the European Court of Justice.

机译:对超国家法院的立法回应:德国联邦议院和欧洲法院。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Although much scholarship exists to demonstrate that national parliaments in Europe are increasingly attuned to the legislative role played by their national courts, very little research has examined the relationship between European parliaments and the supranational court that now exists above national systems in European Union (ELT) Member States, the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This dissertation investigates one EU national parliament, the German Bundestag, and its relationship to the ECJ. Are parliamentarians attuned to the jurisprudence of this supranational court? Do they account for its decisions - and even attempt to anticipate them - as they draft national legislation? I trace the use of ECJ equal treatment decisions in the German Bundestag and use these case studies to evaluate hypotheses about the circumstances under which parties anticipate ECJ decisions. I find that, contrary to the established literature on the interactions between national parliaments and national courts, governing majorities do not engage in anticipatory behavior vis-a-vis the ECJ, nor do they feel threatened by it. The Government's lack of attention to ECJ cases was noted even when the ECJ case was well-publicized and the decision meant sweeping changes for German law. By contrast, parties in the legislative minority view the ECJ as a useful ally and make extensive strategic use of its decisions to secure important partisan victories in parliament, policy victories they may not have won without the Court's decision. I also find evidence that national court decisions exert more influence over parliamentarians than decisions of the supranational court. Findings from the case studies are supplemented with interview data collected at the German Bundestag in Berlin. The interview subjects largely confirmed the findings in the case studies, but suggested that the major obstacle in Bundestag-ECJ relations was the perceptual distance felt between the two institutions, a distance not noted in the Bundestag's relationship with German national courts. Overall, my findings fit well with the established literature on legislative judicial relations (especially the relationship between the Bundestag and Germany's Federal Constitutional Court) but reveal that judicialization from the supranational court to the national legislature is generally weak.
机译:尽管已有大量学者证明欧洲各国议会越来越适应其本国法院所扮演的立法角色,但很少有研究研究欧洲议会与目前在欧洲联盟(ELT)国家体系之上的超国家法院之间的关系。成员国,欧洲法院(ECJ)。本文研究了一个欧盟国家议会德国联邦议院及其与欧洲法院的关系。议员是否会适应这个超国家法院的判例?他们在起草国家立法时是否考虑了它的决定,甚至试图做出预期?我追踪了德国联邦议院中使用ECJ平等待遇的决定,并使用这些案例研究来评估有关各方预期ECJ决定的情况的假设。我发现,与有关国家议会与国家法院之间互动的既定文献相反,多数执政者并未针对欧洲法院进行预期行为,也没有受到这种行为的威胁。即使对ECJ案件进行了充分宣传,政府也注意到对ECJ案件的不重视,该裁决意味着对德国法律的全面修改。相比之下,立法少数党派则认为欧洲法院是有用的盟友,并广泛地运用其决定来确保议会获得重要的党派胜利,而如果没有法院的决定,他们可能不会赢得政策胜利。我还发现有证据表明,国家法院的判决对议员的影响要大于国家上级法院的判决。案例研究的发现得到了柏林德国联邦议院收集的采访数据的补充。访谈对象在很大程度上证实了案例研究中的发现,但认为联邦议院与欧洲法院之间的主要障碍是两个机构之间的感知距离,这一距离在联邦议院与德国国家法院的关系中并未提及。总体而言,我的发现与有关立法司法关系(尤其是联邦议院和德国联邦宪法法院之间的关系)的既有文献非常吻合,但揭示出从超国家法院到国家立法机关的司法化总体上是薄弱的。

著录项

  • 作者

    Slagter, Tracy Hoffmann.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Iowa.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Iowa.;
  • 学科 Law.; Political Science General.; Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 184 p.
  • 总页数 184
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 法律;政治理论;国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号