辅助与自利:欧洲法院的联邦制

Q1 Social Sciences Harvard International Law Journal Pub Date : 2000-04-07 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.203091
E. Swaine
{"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}
引用次数: 33

摘要

辅助原则是欧洲共同体在考虑联邦立法是否必要或成员国的行动是否足够时已开始适用的原则。本文探讨了辅助性是否也应该约束法院的法理。本文首先分析了法院关于对违反共同体法的补救办法的判例法所造成的联邦制问题,特别是认为成员国对未能适当执行共同体指令负有损害赔偿责任的理论。在得出法院需要审查这一判例以符合辅助原则,以及法院现有的赔偿和以权利为中心的理由在很大程度上是不够的结论之后,文章提出了一个双重论点,即即使在辅助原则下也维持会员国的责任:这种责任对于阻止会员国在执行方面作弊至关重要,并鼓励制定授权而不是精确规定管制内容的指令。文章最后描述了对现行责任原则可能作出的修改,以使其更符合辅助原则和比例原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Harvard International Law Journal
Harvard International Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
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.
期刊最新文献
The Human Right to peace What is an International Crime? (A Revisionist History) Power Shifts in International Law: Structural Realignment and Substantive Pluralism Behavioral International Law and Economics Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1