dc.contributor.author | CLOSA, Carlos | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-12-19T17:59:58Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-12-19T17:59:58Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.citation | West European politics, 2013, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 97-121 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0140-2382 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1814/33938 | |
dc.description.abstract | Courts 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.iso | En | |
dc.publisher | Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd | |
dc.relation.ispartof | West European politics | |
dc.subject | Constitution | |
dc.subject | politics | |
dc.title | National higher courts and the ratification of EU treaties | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/01402382.2013.742739 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 36 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 97 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 121 | |
eui.subscribe.skip | true | |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | |