IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eiq/eileqs/43.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Reference Points of EU Judicial Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Damian Chalmers
  • Mariana Chaves

Abstract

Explanations of the dynamics of EU judicial politics must also account for its incidence, namely when and in which sectors litigation of EU law and ECJ judgments occur. This incidence, it is suggested relies on a relationship between three arenas, those for norm-setting, litigation and judgments, as events in each of these arena conditions possibilities for action in the others. This paper analyses the relationship between these arenas through a study of all 2007-9 preliminary rulings and finds EU judicial politics characterised by two predominant dynamics. ‘Patrol norms’ dedicated to securing common policies give rise to low salient judgments dominated by transnational enterprise and national administration litigation. ‘Thickly evaluative norms’ are concerned with articulating certain values. Dominated by litigation by domestic undertakings and non-commercial actors, these norms generate the Court’s salient judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Damian Chalmers & Mariana Chaves, 2011. "The Reference Points of EU Judicial Politics," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 43, European Institute, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:eiq:eileqs:43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/LEQSPaper43.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tracy H. Slagter, 2009. "National Parliaments and the ECJ: A View from the Bundestag," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 175-197, January.
    2. Miceli, Thomas J. & Cosgel, Metin M., 1994. "Reputation and judicial decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 31-51, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Court of Justice; judicial politics; preliminary rulings;

    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:eiq:eileqs:43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Katjana Gattermann). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eilseuk.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.