The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union (inbunden)
Format
Inbunden (Hardback)
Språk
Engelska
Antal sidor
320
Utgivningsdatum
2022-05-12
Förlag
OUP Oxford
Antal komponenter
1
ISBN
9780192847034
The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union (inbunden)

The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union

Inbunden Engelska, 2022-05-12
1015
  • Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar.
  • Gratis frakt inom Sverige över 199 kr för privatpersoner.
A comparative and comprehensive account of the jurisprudence of constitutional conflict between the Court of Justice and national courts with the power of constitutional review. This monograph addresses the incidences of, and reasons for, constitutional clashes in the application and enforcement of EU law.
Visa hela texten

Passar bra ihop

  1. The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union
  2. +
  3. 48 Laws of Power

De som köpt den här boken har ofta också köpt 48 Laws of Power av R Greene (häftad).

Köp båda 2 för 1196 kr

Kundrecensioner

Har du läst boken? Sätt ditt betyg »

Övrig information

Ana Bobic is a referendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union to Advocate General Tamara Capeta. Until 2021, she was a Postdoctoral Researcher at the LEVIATHAN Project at the Hertie School, working on questions of legal accountability in EU economic governance, with a specific focus on the position of the individual in the Economic and Monetary Union. In 2018, she completed the DPhil at the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford as a Law Faculty Graduate Assistance Fund scholar. In Oxford, she was a lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law at Keble College.

Innehållsförteckning

PART I - THEORISING CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT 1: Introduction 2: Theoretical framework: Constitutional pluralism 3: Constitutional pluralism as a descriptive theory 4: Constitutional pluralism as a normative theory PART II - THE JURISPRUDENCE 5: Ultra vires review 6: Identity review 7: Fundamental rights review PART III - CONCLUSIONS 8: Judicial triangles across case studies 9: Three lessons and a warning