The Reasoning of Constitutional Courts in Europe
SSRN Electronic Journal
2023
- 474Usage
- 2Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the different types (styles, methods, forms) of constitutional reasoning in Europe. For this purpose, a conceptual framework will be developed, examples will be shown, doctrines will be systematized, and best practices will be collected. In order to be able to collect best practices, certain normative considerations on the general nature of legal interpretation are also included. The present analysis concentrates on the European constitutional discourse: on national constitutional courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Nonetheless, for the purposes of classification, comparison, and identification of global trends, non-European discourses will also be mentioned. The analysis will show that no specific form of European constitutional reasoning exists: (a) the main trends and characteristics that can be observed in Europe can also be seen worldwide, and (b) the reasoning styles are as diverse in Europe as they are worldwide.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know