Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCLOSA, Carlos
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T17:59:58Z
dc.date.available2014-12-19T17:59:58Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationWest European politics, 2013, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 97-121
dc.identifier.issn0140-2382
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/33938
dc.description.abstractCourts in a given institutional context are aware of the implementation costs of their decisions. Contrary to some interpretations of Higher Courts' reasoning, these have decided, in most cases, that EU treaties are compatible with national constitutional law. In cases on the constitutionality of EU treaties, a negative decision on a given treaty offers only two possible implementation options: either the treaty is re-negotiated or the constitution is modified. The most rigid constitutional revision procedures involve citizens either by means of a referendum and/or an intervening election. Therefore, and despite a significant number of appeals, Higher Courts have not ruled that EU reform treaties require constitutional revision for their ratification when citizens intervene in constitutional amendment procedures
dc.language.isoEn
dc.publisherRoutledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofWest European politics
dc.subjectConstitution
dc.subjectpolitics
dc.titleNational higher courts and the ratification of EU treaties
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01402382.2013.742739
dc.identifier.volume36
dc.identifier.startpage97
dc.identifier.endpage121
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue1


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record