The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice
Författare:Conway Gerard
Titel:The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice
Omfång:344 sid.
Förlag:Cambridge University Press
Ämnesord:EU-rätt , Allmän rättslära

Pris: 736 SEK exkl. moms
The European Court of Justice is widely acknowledged to have played a fundamental role in developing the constitutional law of the EU, having been the first to establish such key doctrines as direct effect, supremacy and parallelism in external relations. Traditionally, EU scholarship has praised the role of the ECJ, with more critical perspectives being given little voice in mainstream EU studies. From the standpoint of legal reasoning, Gerard Conway offers the first sustained critical assessment of how the ECJ engages in its function and offers a new argument as to how it should engage in legal reasoning. He also explains how different approaches to legal reasoning can fundamentally change the outcome of case law and how the constitutional values of the EU justify a different approach to the dominant method of the ECJ.

- Proposes a new model of reasoning for the ECJ which will help EU law academics and practitioners engage with how the ECJ should reason across the range of its case law
- Explains why the general theory of legal reasoning and legal interpretation should not be thought to fundamentally change because of the specific nature of the EU
- Explains how the theory of interpretation can have a practical impact in legal reasoning and the result of judging
- Explores, for the first time, how originalist or historical interpretation could be made to work in EU law and how the idea of the Member States controlling the process of integration can be made to work in practice at the level of legal reasoning

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction and overview: interpretation and the European Court of Justice
2. Reading the Court of Justice
3. Reconceptualising the legal reasoning of the Court of Justice: interpretation and its constraints
4. Retrieving a separation of powers in the EU
5. EU law and a hierarchy of interpretative techniques
6. Levels of generality and originalist interpretation in EU law
7. Subjective originalist interpretation in EU law
8. Conclusion
  © 2017 Jure AB