{"title":"辅助与自利:欧洲法院的联邦制","authors":"E. Swaine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.203091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Subsidiarity is the principle which the European Community has begun applying to consider whether federal legislation is necessary, or whether action by the Member States will suffice. This article considers whether subsidiarity should constrain the Court of Justice's jurisprudence as well. It begins by analyzing the federalism problems posed by the Court's case law concerning remedies for the violation of Community law, in particular the doctrine holding Member States liable in damages for failing properly to implement Community directives. After concluding that the Court is required to review this jurisprudence for consistency with the subsidiarity principle, and that the Court's existing compensation and rights-centered rationale is largely insufficient, the article develops a two-fold argument for sustaining Member State liability even under the subsidiarity principle: such liability is essential to deterring Member State cheating on implementation, and encourages the development of directives that delegate rather than precisely prescribe regulatory content. The article concludes by describing possible modifications to prevailing liability doctrine in order to render it more consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.","PeriodicalId":35765,"journal":{"name":"Harvard International Law Journal","volume":"41 1","pages":"1-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subsidiarity and Self-Interest: Federalism at the European Court of Justice\",\"authors\":\"E. Swaine\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.203091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Subsidiarity is the principle which the European Community has begun applying to consider whether federal legislation is necessary, or whether action by the Member States will suffice. This article considers whether subsidiarity should constrain the Court of Justice's jurisprudence as well. It begins by analyzing the federalism problems posed by the Court's case law concerning remedies for the violation of Community law, in particular the doctrine holding Member States liable in damages for failing properly to implement Community directives. After concluding that the Court is required to review this jurisprudence for consistency with the subsidiarity principle, and that the Court's existing compensation and rights-centered rationale is largely insufficient, the article develops a two-fold argument for sustaining Member State liability even under the subsidiarity principle: such liability is essential to deterring Member State cheating on implementation, and encourages the development of directives that delegate rather than precisely prescribe regulatory content. The article concludes by describing possible modifications to prevailing liability doctrine in order to render it more consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard International Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"1-128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard International Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.203091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard International Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.203091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Subsidiarity and Self-Interest: Federalism at the European Court of Justice
Subsidiarity is the principle which the European Community has begun applying to consider whether federal legislation is necessary, or whether action by the Member States will suffice. This article considers whether subsidiarity should constrain the Court of Justice's jurisprudence as well. It begins by analyzing the federalism problems posed by the Court's case law concerning remedies for the violation of Community law, in particular the doctrine holding Member States liable in damages for failing properly to implement Community directives. After concluding that the Court is required to review this jurisprudence for consistency with the subsidiarity principle, and that the Court's existing compensation and rights-centered rationale is largely insufficient, the article develops a two-fold argument for sustaining Member State liability even under the subsidiarity principle: such liability is essential to deterring Member State cheating on implementation, and encourages the development of directives that delegate rather than precisely prescribe regulatory content. The article concludes by describing possible modifications to prevailing liability doctrine in order to render it more consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.
期刊介绍:
In an opinion survey published in The International Lawyer, senior scholars in the international and comparative law fields ranked the Harvard International Law Journal as having the “strongest academic reputation” of all student-edited international and comparative law specialty journals published in the United States. The ILJ publishes articles on international, comparative, and foreign law, the role of international law in U.S. courts, and the international ramifications of U.S. domestic law. These articles are written by the most prominent scholars and practitioners in the field and have been recognized as important contributions to the development of international law.