IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgw/p0087.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Warum betreibt der Europäische Gerichtshof Rechtsfortbildung? Die Politisierungshypothese

Author

Listed:
  • Höpner, Martin

Abstract

In der rechtswissenschaftlichen, politologischen und soziologischen Fachliteratur ist unumstritten, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) das europäische Recht als 'Motor der Integration' expansiv interpretiert und damit faktisch Integrationspolitik betreibt. Das Papier diskutiert anhand von zehn Richtungsentscheidungen des EuGH, ob die Politisierungshypothese einen Beitrag zur Erklärung dieses Umstands leisten kann. Die Hypothese besagt, dass EuGH-Richter ihre Entscheidungen auf Grundlage von länderspezifischen oder parteipolitischen Interessen fällen. Der parteienbezogenen Variante der Hypothese scheint keine Erklärungskraft zuzukommen. Auch die länderbezogene Variante vermag keine systematische Erklärung der EuGH-Rechtsfortbildung zu leisten, die an die Stelle konkurrierender Deutungen treten könnte. Auf ausgewählte Fälle aber passt die länderbezogene Hypothese recht gut. Auf Grundlage der vorgefundenen Ergebnisse formuliere ich die These, dass situative Akte der Politisierung des EuGH möglich erscheinen, ohne dass der rechtliche Code bei der Entscheidungsfindung damit vollständig und dauerhaft vom politischen Code verdrängt würde.

Suggested Citation

  • Höpner, Martin, 2010. "Warum betreibt der Europäische Gerichtshof Rechtsfortbildung? Die Politisierungshypothese," MPIfG Working Paper 10/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:p0087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/41653/1/634370065.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garrett, Geoffrey, 1995. "The politics of legal integration in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(01), pages 171-181, December.
    2. Caporaso, James A. & Tarrow, Sidney, 2009. "Polanyi in Brussels: Supranational Institutions and the Transnational Embedding of Markets," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(4), pages 593-620, October.
    3. Mattli, Walter & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 1998. "Revisiting the European Court of Justice," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 177-209, January.
    4. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    5. Martin van Hees & Bernard Steunenberg, 2000. "The Choices Judges Make," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(3), pages 305-323, July.
    6. Höpner, Martin, 2004. "Unternehmensmitbestimmung unter Beschuss: Die Mitbestimmungsdebatte im Licht der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    7. Burley, Anne-Marie & Mattli, Walter, 1993. "Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 41-76, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grimmel, Andreas, 2011. "Politics in robes? The European Court of Justice and the myth of judicial activism," Discussion Papers 2/11, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg, Institute for European Integration.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Yves Pitarakis & George Tridimas, 2003. "Joint Dynamics of Legal and Economic Integration in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 357-368, November.
    2. Andreas Grimmel, 2011. "Integration and the Context of Law: Why the European Court of Justice is not a Political Actor," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 3, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    3. Susanne K. Schmidt, 2000. "Only an Agenda Setter?," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 37-61, February.
    4. Grimmel, Andreas, 2011. "Politics in robes? The European Court of Justice and the myth of judicial activism," Discussion Papers 2/11, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg, Institute for European Integration.
    5. Tridimas, George & Tridimas, Takis, 2004. "National courts and the European Court of Justice: a public choice analysis of the preliminary reference procedure," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 125-145, June.
    6. Dederke, Julian, 2014. "Bahnliberalisierung in der Europäischen Union: Die Rolle des EuGH als politischer und politisch restringierter Akteur bei der Transformation staatsnaher Sektoren," PIPE - Papers on International Political Economy 20/2014, Free University Berlin, Center for International Political Economy, revised 2014.
    7. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    8. Höpner, Martin, 2008. "Usurpation statt Delegation: Wie der EuGH die Binnenmarktintegration radikalisiert und warum er politischer Kontrolle bedarf," MPIfG Discussion Paper 08/12, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    9. Mark A. Pollack, 2007. "The New Institutionalisms and European Integration," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0031, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    10. Wolf, Sebastian, 2011. "Euratom Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Non-Integration," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 15, December.
    11. Höpner, Martin & Schäfer, Armin, 2012. "Integration among unequals: How the heterogeneity of European varieties of capitalism shapes the social and democratic potential of the EU," MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Darren Hawkins & Wade Jacoby, 2008. "Agent permeability, principal delegation and the European Court of Human Rights," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-28, March.
    13. Clifford J. Carrubba, 2003. "The European Court of Justice, Democracy, and Enlargement," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 75-100, March.
    14. George Tridimas, 2004. "A Political Economy Perspective of Judicial Review in the European Union: Judicial Appointments Rule, Accessibility and Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 99-116, July.
    15. Höpner, Martin, 2014. "Wie der Europäische Gerichtshof und die Kommission Liberalisierung durchsetzen: Befunde aus der MPIfG-Forschungsgruppe zur Politischen Ökonomie der europäischen Integration," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    17. Seikel, Daniel, 2011. "Wie die Europäische Kommission Liberalisierung durchsetzt: Der Konflikt um das öffentlich-rechtliche Bankenwesen in Deutschland," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/16, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    18. Stefan Voigt, "undated". "Iudex Calculat: The ECJ's Quest for Power," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2003-1-1066, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    19. Nicole Lindstrom, 2010. "Service Liberalization in the Enlarged EU: A Race to the Bottom or the Emergence of Transnational Political Conflict?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(5), pages 1307-1327, November.
    20. Beate Kohler-Koch, 1997. "The European Union Facing Enlargement: Still a System sui generis?," MZES Working Papers 20, MZES.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:p0087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.