Political and constitutional overrides: the case of the Court of Justice of European Union

References

• Aggarwal, V. K., & Dupont, C. (1999). Goods, games, and institutions. International Political Science Review, 20(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512199204005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickel, A. M. (1986). The Least Dangerous Branch: the Supreme Court at the bar of Politics. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blauberger, M., & Kelemen, R. D. (2017). Can courts rescue national democracy? Judicial safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1229357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blauberger, M., & Schmidt, S. K. (2017). ‘Free movement, the welfare state, and the European Union’s over-constitutionalization: Administrating contradictions’. Public Administration, 95(2), 437–449. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brower, C. N., & Schill, S. W. (2008). Is arbitration a threat or a boom to the legitimacy of international investment law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 9, 471–498. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol9/iss2/5
   Google Scholar
• Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., & Hankla, C. (2008). Judicial Behavior under political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro-Montero, J. L., Alblas, E., Dyevre, A., & Lampach, N. (2018). The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency? European Union Politics, 19(4), 570–596. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116518793707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conant, L. (2002). Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1957). Decision-Making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-Maker. Journal of Public Law, 6, 279–295.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G. (2016). The European Union legislature as an Agent of the European Court of Justice. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(4), 846–861. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Waele, H. (2010). The role of the European Court of Justice in the integration process: A contemporary and normative assessment. Hanse Law Review, 6, 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The Choices Justices Make. CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eskridge, W. (1991). Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions. Yale Law Journal, 101, 331–455. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/796805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETUC. (2014). New EU framework on public procurement - ETUC key points for the transposition of Directive 2014/24/eu ETUC, 2014, available at https://www.etuc.org/publications/new-eu-framework-public-procurement-etuc-key-points-transposition-directive-201424eu#.VtGsweZSKap (accessed February 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Ferejohn, J. A., & Shipan, C. (1990). ‘Congressional influence on Bureaucracy’. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6(special issue), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.1
   Google Scholar
• Ferejohn, J. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1992). A Positive theory of statutory interpretation. International Review of Law and Economics, 12(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(92)90046-T
   Google Scholar
• Fjelstul, J. C. (2019). The evolution of European Union law: A new data set on the Acquis Communautaire. European Union Politics, 20(4), 670–691. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116519842947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, G. (1992). ‘International Cooperation and institutional Choice: The European Community’s Internal market’. International Organization, 46(2), 533–560. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, G. (1995). The politics of legal integration in the European Union. International Organization, 49(1), 171–181. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., & Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, national governments, and legal integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 149–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, G., & Weingast, B. R. (1993). ‘Ideas, Interests, and institutions: Constructing the European Community’s Internal market’. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy (pp. 173–206). Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gely, R., & Spiller, P. T. (1990). A Rational Choice theory of Supreme Court statutory decisions with Applications to the “state Farm” and “grove City cases”. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6(2), 263–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsburg, T. (2005). Bounded discretion in international judicial lawmaking. Virginia Journal of International Law, 45(3), 631–674.
   Google Scholar
• Hatzopoulos, V., & Hervey, T. (2013). Coming into line: The EU’s Court softens on cross-border health care. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 8(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133112000102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D. (2012). The political foundations of judicial independence in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.632127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, O., & Naurin, D. (2016). Judicial independence and political uncertainty. How the risk of override impacts on the Court of Justice of the EU. International Organization, 70(2), 377–408. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. (2014). The role of the state in governing the commons. Environmental Science & Policy, 36, 8–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, B. A. (1988). ‘A Model of Judicial Influence on Congressional Policymaking: Groove City College v. Bell’, The Hoover Institution Working Papers in Political Science.P-88-7.
   Google Scholar
• Martinsen, D. S. (2011). Judicial policy-making and Europeanization: The proportionality of national control and administrative discretion. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 944–961. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.599962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinsen, D. S. (2015). An Ever More Powerful Court?: The Political Constraints of Legal Integration in the European Union. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meernik, J., & Ignagni, J. (1997). Judicial Review and Coordinate Construction of the constitution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 447–467. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2111772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, M. A. (2013). ‘The New EU legal history: What’s New, what’s Missing?’. American University International Law Review, 28(5), 1257–1310.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, H. (1986). On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking. Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, A. (2010). Power and Persuasion In Invetsment treaty interpretation: The Dual role of states. The American Journal of International Law, 104(2), 179–225. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.104.2.0179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, G. N. (2008). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (2nd ed.). University Of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffer, J., Follesdal, A., & Ulfstein, G. (2013). International Human rights and the challenge of Legitimacy. In J. Schaffer, A. Follesdal, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes: Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 1–31). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (2010). The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a “social market economy”. Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), 211–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwp031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal, J. A. (1997). Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive theory of Congress and courts. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2952257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal, J. A., Westerland, C., & Lindquist, S. A. (2011). Congress, the Supreme Court, and judicial Review: Testing a constitutional Separation of Powers model. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00480.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiller, P. T., & Gely, R. (1992). Congressional control or judicial independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations decisions, 1949-1988. The RAND Journal of Economics, 23(4), 463–492. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2555900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone Sweet, A. (2004). The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford University Press, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. (2012). The European Court of Justice, state Noncompliance, and the politics of override. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 204–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stumpf, H. P. (1965). Congressional response to Supreme Court Rulings: The interaction of Law and politics. Journal of Public Law, 14, 377–395.
   Google Scholar
• Uribe, A., Spriggs, J. F., & Hansford, T. G. (2014). The influence of congressional preferences on legislative overrides of Supreme Court decisions. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 921–945. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Abeele, E. (2014). ‘Integrating Social and Environmental Dimensions in Public Procurement: One Small Step for the Internal Market, One Giant Leap for the EU?’, ETUI Working Paper 2014.8.
   Google Scholar