Structural values in judicial reasoning : consensus analysis in constitutional and supranational contexts

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKUKAVICA, Jaka
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-30T07:10:11Z
dc.date.embargo2028-05-29
dc.date.issued2024
dc.descriptionDefence date: 29 May 2024en
dc.descriptionExamining Board: Prof. Urška Šadl (European University Institute, Supervisor); Prof. Gráinne de Búrca (European University Institute); Prof. Daniel Halberstam (University of Michigan Law School); Prof. Joxerramon Bengoetxea (University of the Basque Country)en
dc.descriptionAwarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best comparative law doctoral thesis, 2025en
dc.description.abstractThis thesis studies consensus analysis as an argumentative practice. That is, the thesis studies how highest courts in divided-power systems give meaning to legal norms of the higher-level legal order through determining whether a consensus exists on the issue amongst legal orders of the constituent units of that polity, that is the states. Consensus as an argumentative practice is used by different courts, ranging from constitutional to international courts and treaty bodies. This thesis takes stock of the different structural contexts in which these courts operate and explores if courts employ consensus analysis in a way which fits the structure of the dividedpower system in which the courts operate. It conducts this inquiry in two parts. In Part I, it constructs the theoretical and analytical framework, as well as provides a justification for its normative outlook that an argumentative practice should fit its broader structural context. It does so based on coherentist and structuralist theories of justification in law, leaning most heavily on the conception of integrity and fit in legal adjudication as explicated by Dworkin. Building on these theoretical starting points, the thesis constructs the analytical model that consists of two Weberian polar ideal types of consensus analysis based on the conception of structure that is implicit in different types of consensus analysis. In Part II, the thesis uses these two ideal types of consensus as analytical yardsticks to critically evaluate the case law of three courts that lie on a spectrum from a constitutionalist court to an internationalist court. It studies the “national consensus doctrine” of the Supreme Court of the United States, the “constitutional traditions common to the Member States” used by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the “European consensus” doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights.en
dc.description.versionChapter 3 'Towards a general typology of consensus analysis' of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as chapter 'Towards a general typology of consensus analysis : from entrenching divergence to constituting convergence' (2023) in the book 'Accommodating diversity in multilevel constitutional orders : legal mechanisms of divergence and convergence'.en
dc.description.versionChapter 5 'Supreme Court of the United States - In search of a national consensus' of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as chapter 'National consensus and the eighth amendment : is there something to be learned from the United States Supreme Court' (2019) in the book 'Building consensus on European consensus : judicial interpretation of human rights in Europe and beyond'.en
dc.embargo.terms2028-05-29
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationFlorence : European University Institute, 2024en
dc.identifier.doi10.2870/072431en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/76897
dc.language.isoenen
dc.orcid.uploadfalse*
dc.publisherEuropean University Instituteen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUIen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesLAWen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPhD Thesisen
dc.relation.replaceshttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/75833
dc.relation.replaceshttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/60526
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessen
dc.subject.lcshLaw -- Philosophy
dc.subject.lcshJurisprudence
dc.titleStructural values in judicial reasoning : consensus analysis in constitutional and supranational contextsen
dc.typeThesisen
dspace.entity.typePublication
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7346-6683
person.identifier.other43557
relation.isAuthorOfPublication5085ce5e-e78d-43e8-a9c7-bed4e74ff253
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery5085ce5e-e78d-43e8-a9c7-bed4e74ff253
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Kukavica_2024_LAW.pdf
Size:
3.13 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Embargoed until 2028
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
3.83 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
LAW PhD Theses