Obstruction in parliaments: a cross-national perspective

References

• Benoit, K., & M. Laver. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bernódusson, H. (2016, March). Filibustering in the Albingi. Paper presented at the Lusaka session of the association of secretaries general of parliaments. Retrieved from https://www.asgp.co/sites/default/files/Bernodusson%2C%20%20Iceland.docx
   Google Scholar
• Binder, S. A., Lawrence, E. D., & Smith, S. S. (2002). Tracking the filibuster, 1917 to 1996. American Politics Research, 30, 406–422. doi: 10.1177/1532673X02030004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bücker, J. (1989). Report on the obstruction of parliamentary proceedings. Constitutional and Parliamentary Information, 158, 243–264. Association of Secretaries General of Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.asgp.co/sites/default/files/documents//WQEASQEMHFGRHHIELPJYYIKEBULLGK.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic. (1995). Rules of procedure of the chamber of deputies. Retrieved from http://public.psp.cz/en/docs/laws/1995/90.html#x46
   Google Scholar
• Dion, D. (1997). Turning the legislative thumbscrew: Minority rights and procedural change in legislative politics. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, H. (1995). Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In H. Doring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 223–246). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• El Berhoumi, M., Pitsys, J., & Woelfle, D. (2016). L’Obstruction Parlementaire En Belgique. CRISP 2016, 4(2289-2290), 5–78.
   Google Scholar
• Fong, C., & Krehbiel, K. (2018). Limited obstruction. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S0003055417000387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galloway, G. (2010, March 2). Motion of Afghan detainees could derail budget. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/motion-on-afghan-detainees-could-derail-budget/article4352033/
   Google Scholar
• Huber, J. D. (1992). Restrictive legislative procedures in France and the United States. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 675–687. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1964130 doi: 10.2307/1964130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J., & R. Inglehart. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics, 1(1), 73–111. doi: 10.1177/1354068895001001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, M., & W. B. Hunt. (1992). Policy and party competition. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, M., & K. A. Shepsle. (1994). Cabinet government in theoretical perspective. In Cabinet ministers and parliamentary government (pp. 285–310). Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, A. (2008). Parliamentary opposition in Westminster democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 14, 20–45. doi: 10.1080/13572330801920887
   Google Scholar
• Kallenbach, M. (2001, December 6). Yesterday in Parliament. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1364471/Yesterday-in- Parliament.html
   Google Scholar
• Kopecký, P., & Spirova, M. (2008). Parliamentary opposition in post-communist democracies: Power of the powerless. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1-2), 133–159. doi: 10.1080/13572330801921117
   Google Scholar
• Koster-Riemann, S. (2011). Japan: Decades of partisan advantages impeding cabinet’s agenda setting power. In B. E. Rasch & G. Tsebelis (Eds.), The role of governments in legislative agenda setting (pp. 254–269). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lauter, D. (1988, February 25). Senate police seize packwood for quorum call. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-25/news/mn-45210_1_quorum-call
   Google Scholar
• Ljiphardt, A. (1994). Democracies: Forms, performance, and constitutional engineering. European Journal of Political Research, 25, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1994.tb01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L. W. (2004). The government agenda in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 445–461. doi: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00080.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuyama, M. (2001). Agenda power in the Japanese diet (Doctoral Dissertation). Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, W. C., & Sieberer, U. (2014). Procedure and rules in legislatures. In S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of legislative studies (pp. 311–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2008). Making sense of opposition. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 14, 236–250. doi: 10.1080/13572330801921257
   Google Scholar
• Overby, L. M., & Bell, L. C. (2004). Rational behaviour or the norm of cooperation? Filibustering among retiring senators. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 906–924. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00282.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parliament of Canada. (2009). House of Commons procedure and practice. 2nd ed. Retrieved from http://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=37461d8b-10dc-48a4-99a8-8a843ba16e8a&sbpid=7d404edf-4230-4fd3-979f-da8f3fc8511e#_ftn33
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., & Walters, R. (2015). How parliament works (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag and Rules of Procedure of the Mediation Committee. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80060000.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rutherford, G. W. (1914). Some aspects of parliamentary obstruction. The Sewanee Review, 22(2), 166–180.
   Google Scholar
• Sieberer, U., & Müller, W. C. (2015). Explaining reforms of parliamentary minority rights: A theoretical framework with case study application. West European Politics, 38(5), 997–1019. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1045321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streich, P., & Levy, J. S. (2007). Time horizons, discounting, and intertemporal choice. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(2), 199–226. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27638546 doi: 10.1177/0022002706298133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare. (1995). Parliamentary government and legislative organisation. In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 51–82). New York: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• te Velde, H. (2013). Parliamentary obstruction and the “crisis” of European parliamentary politics around 1900. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 16(1), 125–147.
   Google Scholar
• Time Magazine. (1963). From the cow-walk to the brawl. Time, 82(1), 41. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed December 16, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal. (2012). House of representatives of the Netherlands—rules of procedure. Retrieved from https://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/sites/default/files/content/rules_of_procedure_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, L. P. (2015, September 8). Interview with the author. The Palace of Westminster.
   Google Scholar
• Wiborg, Matti. (1995). Parliamentary questioning: Control by communication. In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 179–222). New York: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yatomi, K., & Katogi, M. (1989, September 15). Reply to the questionnaire ‘obstruction of parliamentary proceedings. Located at the British parliamentary archive, palace at Westminster, London.
   Google Scholar
• Zubek, R. (2011). Negative agenda control and executive–legislative relations in east central Europe, 1997–2008. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(2), 172–192. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.574025
   Google Scholar