Death by a thousand cuts: measuring autocratic legalism in the European Union’s rule of law conundrum

Bibliography

• Agh, A. “The Triple Crisis in Hungary: The ‘Backsliding’ of Hungarian Democracy After Twenty Years.” Romanian Journal of Political Science 13, no. 1 (2013): 25–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alizada, N., R. Cole, L. Gastaldi, S. Grahn, S. Hellmeier, P. Kolvani, J. Lachapelle, A. Lührmann, S. F. Maerz, S. Pillai, and S. I. Lindberg. Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez, M., J. A. Cheibub, and F. Limongi. “A Classifying Political Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development 31, no. 2 (1996): 3–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antall, József. LIBE–AFCO Joint Public Hearing on “Rule of Law Mechanisms in the EU”. AFCO Press Releases, European Parliament, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Arat, Z. F. Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder: Rienner, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Bard, P. “The Hungarian ‘Lex NGO’ Before the CJEU: Calling an Abuse of State Power by its Name.” VerfBlog, January 27, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Bermeo, N. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy 27, no. 1 (2016): 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birdwell, J., S. Feve, C. Tryhorn, and N. Vibla. “Democracy in Europe Can No Longer Be Taken for Granted.” DEMOS (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Boese, V. A. “How (Not) to Measure Democracy.” International Area Studies Review 22, no. 2 (2019): 95–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaards, M. “Where to Draw the Line? From Degree to Dichotomy in Measures of Democracy.” Democratization 19, no. 4 (2012): 690–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaards, M. “De-democratization in Hungary: Diffusely Defective Democracy.” Democratization 25, no. 8 (2018): 1481–1499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A. “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.” American Sociological Review 45, no. 2 (1980): 370–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bühlmann, M., W. Merkel, L. Müller, and B. Weßels. “The Democracy Barometer: A New Instrument to Measure the Quality of Democracy and its Potential for Comparative Research.” European Political Science 11, no. 4 (2012): 519–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bush, S. “The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings.” Perspectives on Politics 15, no. 3 (2017): 711–731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzogány, A. “Illiberal Democracy in Hungary: Authoritarian Diffusion or Domestic Causation?” Democratization 24, no. 7 (2017): 1307–1325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casper, G., and C. Tufis. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11, no. 2 (2003): 196–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassani, A., and Tomini, L. “Reversing Regimes and Concepts: From Democratization to Autocratization.” European Political Science 19, no. 2 (2020): 272–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cianetti, L., and S. Hanley. “The End of the Backsliding Paradigm.” Journal of Democracy 32, no. 1 (2021): 66–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. REPORT on the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report. European Parliament, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. “AMENDMENTS 1–230: Proposal for a Council Decision Determining, Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Existence of a Clear Risk of a Serious Breach by Hungary of the Values on Which the Union is Founded.” European Parliament (2022).
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. AMENDMENTS 1–379: The Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report. European Parliament, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M. “Commentary: Democracy and Dimensions Comments on Munck and Verkuilen.” Comparative Political Studies 35, no. 1 (2002): 35–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., and W. H. Reinicke. “Measuring Polyarchy.” In On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, edited by A. Inkeles, 48–68. New York: Routledge, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., J. Gerring, D. D. Altman, M. Bernhard, S. Fish, A. Hicken, M. Kroenig et al. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 2 (2011): 247–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M, J. Gerring, C. H. Knutsen, J. Krusell, J. Medzihorsky, and J. Pernes. “The Methodology of ‘Varieties of Democracy’ (V-Dem) (V-Dem).” Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 143, no. 1 (2019): 107–133.
   Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., J. Gerring, A. N. Glynn, C. H. Knutsen, S. I. Lindberg, D. Pemstein, B. Seim, S. Skaaning, and J. Teorell. Varieties of Democracy: Measuring Two Centuries of Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Crasnow, S. “The Measure of Democracy: Coding in Political Science.” In Standardization in Measurement: Philosophical, Historical and Sociological Issues, edited by Oliver Schlaudt and Lara Huber. London: Academia, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Csaky, Z. “The Antidemocratic Turn.” Freedom House - Nation in Transit 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Cutright, P. “National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis.” American Sociological Review 28, no. 2 (1963): 253–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L. “Democratic Regression in Comparative Perspective: Scope, Methods, and Causes.” Democratization 28, no. 1 (2021): 22–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, L., and L. Morlino. “The Quality of Democracy. An Overview.” Journal of Democracy 15, no. 4 (2004): 20–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dictionary.com. “Legalism”. Accessed January 2022.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021 Strategic Foresight Report – The EU’s Capacity and Freedom to Act. European Commission, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. “Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the Rule of law Situation in Lithuania.” European Commission (2021).
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Establishing a EU Mechanism Democracy, the Rule of law, and Fundamental Rights, Legislative Train, 10.2022, European Parliament, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• European Political Strategy Centre. “Strong Europe, Better World – Defending Global Cooperation.” Multilateralism and Democracy in Turbulent Times. European Commission (2019).
   Google Scholar
• Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2020 Methodology. Freedom House, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Freedom House. NIT Scores 2005–2020. Nations in Transit.
   Google Scholar
• Giannone, D. “Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of Democracy: The Freedom House Case.” Democratization 17, no. 1 (2010): 68–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giebler, H., S. P. Ruth, and D. Tanneberg. “Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy.” Politics and Governance 6, no. 1 (2018): 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurr, T. R., and M. G. Marshall. Polity5: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2018. Center for Systemic Peace, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, A. “How to Measure Democracy: A Practitioner’s View.” The Loop (2021).
   Google Scholar
• Jackman, R. “On the Relation of Economic Development to Democratic Performance.” American Journal of Political Science 17 (1973): 611–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakab, A., and L. Kirchmair. “How to Develop the EU Justice Scoreboard Into a Rule of Law Index: Using an Existing Tool in the EU Rule of Law Crisis in a More Efficient Way.” German Law Journal 22, no. 6 (2021): 936–955.
   Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D. “Europe’s Other Democratic Deficit: National Authoritarianism in Europe’s Democratic Union.” Government and Opposition 52, no. 2 (2017): 211–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D. “The European Union’s Authoritarian Equilibrium.” Journal of European Public Policy 27, no. 3 (2020): 481–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D. “European’s Authoritarian Cancer: Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment.” Progressive Yearbook, FEPS, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D. and T. Pavone. “Where Have the Guardians Gone? Law Enforcement and the Politics of Supranational Forbearance in the European Union.” SSRN, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R. D., and L. Pech. “Working Paper: Why Autocrats Love Constitutional Identity and Constitutional Pluralism.” Reconnect (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Lipset, S. M. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53, no. 4 (1959): 69–105.
   Google Scholar
• Lührmann, A., M. Tannenberg, and S. I. Lindberg. “Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes.” Politics and governance 6, no. 1 (2018): 60–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lührmann, A., and S. I. Lindberg. “A Third Wave of Autocratization is Here: What is New About it?” Democratization 26 no. 7 (2019): 1095–1113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matczak, M. “The Clash of Powers in Poland’s Rule of Law Crisis: Tools of Attack and Self-Defense.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 12, no. 3 (2020): 421–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayoral, J., and M. Wind. “Unleashed Dialogue or Captured by Politics? The Impact of Judicial Independence on National Higher Courts’ Cooperation with the CJEU.” Journal of European Public Policy, no. 9 (2022):1433–1453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazmanyan, A. “On Legalism, Illiberal Takeover, and the Immune System of Constitutional Democracy.” In Constitutionalism Under Stress, edited by Uladzislau Belavusau and Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, 231–242. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Møller, J., and S.-E. Skaaning. “Regime Types and Democratic Sequencing.” Journal of Democracy 24, no. 1 (2013): 142–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A., and M. A. Vachudova. “National Interests, State Power, and EU Enlargement.” East European Politics and Societies: And Cultures 17, no. 1 (2003): 42–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munck, G. L. Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Munck, G. L., and J. Verkuilen. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices.” Comparative Political Studies 35, no. 1 (2002): 5–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubauer, D. E. “Some Conditions of Democracy.” American Political Science Review 61, no. 4 (1967): 1002–1009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nugent, N., and M. Rhinard. “The ‘Political’ Roles of the European Commission.” Journal of European Integration 41, no. 2 (2019): 203–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pansardi, P., and P. D. Tortola. “A ‘More Political’ Commission? Reassessing EC Politicization Through Language.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 60 (2022): 1047–1068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pech, L. “Dealing with ‘Fake Judges’ Under EU Law.” Reconnect, May 14, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Pech, L. “A. Court of Justice Protecting Polish Judges from Poland’s Disciplinary ‘Star Chamber’: Commission v. Poland (Interim Proceedings).” Common Market law Review 58, no. 1 (2021): 137–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pech, L., and P. Bárd. The Commission’s Rule of Law Report and the EU Monitoring and Enforcement of Article 2 TEU Values. European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Pech, L., and K. L. Scheppele. “Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU.” Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 19 (2017): 3–47.
   Google Scholar
• Pelke, L., and A. Croissant. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Autocratization Episodes.” Swiss Political Science Review 27, no. 2 (2021): 434–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickel, S., W. Breustedt, T. Smolka, M. Kneuer, B. Geissel, and H. Lauth. “Measuring the Quality of Democracy: Why Include the Citizens’ Perspective?” International Political Science Review 37, no. 5 (2016): 645–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichlak, M. “Abortion, Constitution and the Role of Constitutional Court: Lessons from Poland – Constitutionalism and Politics.” European University Institute, November 30, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Polgári, E., and T. Dombos. “A New Chapter in the Hungarian Government’s Crusade Against LGBTQI People.” VerfBlog, November 18, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Przeworski, Adam. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” In Democracy’s Value, edited by Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordon, 23–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, J. and J. Tellez. “Freedom House’s Scarlet Letter: Assessment Power Through Transnational Pressure.” In The Power of Global Performance Indicators, edited by Judith G. Kelley and Beth A. Simmons, 242–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Rohlfing, R. H. “Methods of Shrinking Civic Space and its Consequences.” Nyt Europa (2022).
   Google Scholar
• Sadurski, W. Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Sadurski, W. “Disciplinary Chamber May Go – but the Rotten System Will Stay.” VerfBlog, August 11, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Scheppele, K. L. “The Rule of Law and the Frankenstate: Why Governance Checklists Do Not Work.” Governance 26, no. 4 (2013): 559–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheppele, K. L. “Autocratic Legalism.” The University of Chicago Law Review 85, no. 2 (2018): 545–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, F., and U. Sedelmeier. “Governance by Conditionality: EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 11, no. 4 (2004): 661–679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaaning, S.-E. “Waves of Autocratization and Democratization: A Critical Note on Conceptualization and Measurement.” Democratization 27, no. 8 (2020): 1533–1542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. K. “Socio-Economic Development and Political Democracy: A Causal Analysis.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13, no. 1 (1969): 95–125.
   Google Scholar
• Speech by President von der Leyen at the EU Ambassadors Conference 2021 via videoconference. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_21_6666
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, Nils D. “Comparing Freedom House Democracy Scores to Alternative Indices and Testing for Political Bias: Are US Allies Rated as More Democratic by Freedom House?” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18, no. 4 (2016): 329–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomini, L., and C. Wagemann. “Varieties of Contemporary Democratic Breakdown and Regression: A Comparative Analysis European Journal of Political Research 57, no. 3 (2018): 687–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccaro, A. “Comparing Measures of Democracy: Statistical Properties, Convergence, and Interchangeability.” European Political Science 20 (2021): 666–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhanen, T. Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries. London: Routledge, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhanen, T. Democratization: A Comparative Analysis of 170 Countries. London, New York: Routledge, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Völkel, J. C. “Complex Politics in Single Numbers? The Problem of Defining and Measuring Democracy.” Middle East Critique 24, no. 1 (2015): 67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wind, M. The Tribalization of Europe: A Defense of our Liberal Values. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020.
   Google Scholar