Embargoed Access
Structural values in judicial reasoning : consensus analysis in constitutional and supranational contexts
Loading...
Files
Embargoed until 2028
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Florence : European University Institute, 2024
EUI; LAW; PhD Thesis
Cite
KUKAVICA, Jaka, Structural values in judicial reasoning : consensus analysis in constitutional and supranational contexts, Florence : European University Institute, 2024, EUI, LAW, PhD Thesis - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/76897
Abstract
This 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.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Defence date: 29 May 2024
Examining 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)
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best comparative law doctoral thesis, 2025
Examining 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)
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best comparative law doctoral thesis, 2025
External Links
Publisher
Version
Chapter 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'.
Chapter 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'.
Chapter 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'.