Good Judgment

Urška Šadl is Part-time Professor at the European University Institute, Italy, and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

• 1. Introductiona. The Main Claimb. The Structurei. The Premiseii. Contributionc. The Outlined. In SumPart One: The Analytical Framework2. Context Conscious Judginga. Four Perspectives on Context Conscious Judgingi. Maximising Legal Values with Sound Legal Argumentsii. Maximising Power with Strategic Solutionsiii. Maintaining Authorityiv. Minimising Conflict by Muddling Through b. The Court’s Context Conscious Reasoning and Political Power3. Good Judgementa. From Context Conscious Judging to Good Judgment i. The Baseline: Model Application of Law and the Structure of Typical Justificationii. Non-binary Decisions: An Illustrationiii. Conflicting Interestsiv. Distinctionsb. Three Types of Good Judgment c. Conclusion4. Operationalising Good Judgmenta. Three Steps of the Analysisb. The Parameters of Case Lawi. Legal Characteristicsii. Case Characteristicsc. Annotation of JudgmentsConclusion to Part OnePart Two: The Mechanics of Good Judgment5. Personsa. Introductionb. The Rules Governing the Free Movement of Persons and European Citizensi. Treaty Rights, Legislative Acts, and the Competence to Regulate Free Movementii. Citizenship Rights Directive: Consolidating Legislative Instruments, Case Law and Conflictc. Free Movement Disputes: Legal Issuesd. The Parameters of Good Judgement i. Non-sanctioning Europeanisation of National Policies through the Prism of Proportionality, Discrimination and Compatibility Review ii. Individual Protection and Deferral of Authority in Judgments Upholding European Rights and Principlesiii. Preserving State Autonomy in Judgments Advancing Free Movement of Persons Lawiv. Relevant Information About Free Movement of Persons Casese. Emblematic Judgments: Facts, Justification, Context, Implicationsi. Non-sanctioning Europeanisation of National Policiesii. Deferential Upholding of European Rights iii. Bounded Undesirable Interpretationf. Upholding Conflicting Interests – The Long Term 1954 – 20226. Goodsa. Introductionb. The Legal Framework of Free Movement of Goodsi. The Ambiguous Heart of the Systemii. Rights at Stake and Interests at Play in the Case-lawc. Free Movement Judgments: An Overview of Legal Questionsd. The Parameters of Good Judgment i. Non-sanctioning Europeanisation of National Policies through the Prism of Proportionality, Discrimination and Compatibility Reviewii. Deferral of Authority in Judgments Upholding Free Movement Rights and Principlesiii. Preserving State Autonomy in Judgments Advancing Free Movement of Goods: Bounded Undesirable Interpretationiv. Relevant Information about Free Movement of Good Casese. Emblematic Judgments: A Close Upi. The Non-sanctioning Europeanisation of National Policiesii. The Deferential Upholding of Free Movement Rightsiii. The Bounded Undesirable Interpretationf. Upholding Conflicting Interests: The Long TermPart Three: The Mechanisms of Good Judgment Introductioni. Main Findingii. Unpacking the Findings: The Roadmapa. Case Motivated Good Judgmenti. The Applicants ii. The Caseiii. The Institution (Idiosyncratic Good Judgment)b. Context-Motivated Good Judgmenti. Recognising the Stakesii. Honouring Fragile Consensus/Equilibrium iii. Adjusting to the Climatec. Alternative Tools of Context Conscious Judging i. Reframing Disputesii. Mixed Signalsiii. Low Stakes/Waiting for the Tide to Turnd. Appraisal8. Conclusiona. Summary of the Argumentb. Contributionc. Is Good Judgment a Good Idea?