Beyond Incomplete Dichotomies: A Structural Typology of Dual Rights in the EU and the US

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
Mohamed Moussa
{"title":"Beyond Incomplete Dichotomies: A Structural Typology of Dual Rights in the EU and the US","authors":"Mohamed Moussa","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The two widely used dichotomies of floor/ceiling and centralization/decentralization often fail to capture the full interactions of rights in multilevel constitutional systems such as the EU or the US. This article offers a comprehensive yet straightforward classification linking rights to the division of power between the center and component states. The typology comprises three overarching categories: plurality, partial and full centrality. These categories are broken down into further subcategories and illustrated through comparative examples from the EU and the US. The typology reveals mezzanine structural levels which go unnoticed when analysis is confined to existing dichotomies. The purpose of the typology is, first, to facilitate more accurate comparisons of the EU and the US’s composite systems and make commonalities and divergences easier to identify. Second, through the ensuing clarity, it aids the normative inquiry into what level of government—the center or the state—is better suited to regulate different types of rights and to what extent. Thirdly, it reconnects the EU-US comparison with comparative constitutionalism’s Aristotelian pedigree of utilizing robust categorization as a necessary cognitive tool for maintaining rationally ordered analyses.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"364 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The two widely used dichotomies of floor/ceiling and centralization/decentralization often fail to capture the full interactions of rights in multilevel constitutional systems such as the EU or the US. This article offers a comprehensive yet straightforward classification linking rights to the division of power between the center and component states. The typology comprises three overarching categories: plurality, partial and full centrality. These categories are broken down into further subcategories and illustrated through comparative examples from the EU and the US. The typology reveals mezzanine structural levels which go unnoticed when analysis is confined to existing dichotomies. The purpose of the typology is, first, to facilitate more accurate comparisons of the EU and the US’s composite systems and make commonalities and divergences easier to identify. Second, through the ensuing clarity, it aids the normative inquiry into what level of government—the center or the state—is better suited to regulate different types of rights and to what extent. Thirdly, it reconnects the EU-US comparison with comparative constitutionalism’s Aristotelian pedigree of utilizing robust categorization as a necessary cognitive tool for maintaining rationally ordered analyses.
超越不完全二分法:欧盟和美国双重权利的结构类型
摘要在欧盟或美国等多层次宪法体系中,下限/上限和中央集权/分权这两种被广泛使用的二分法往往无法充分反映权利的相互作用。本文提供了一个全面而直接的分类,将权利与中央国家和组成国家之间的权力划分联系起来。类型学包括三个总体类别:多元性、部分中心性和完全中心性。这些类别被细分为更多的子类别,并通过欧盟和美国的比较示例进行说明。类型学揭示了夹层结构水平,当分析局限于现有的二分法时,这些夹层结构水平会被忽视。类型学的目的是,首先,促进更准确地比较欧盟和美国的复合体系,并使共性和差异更容易识别。其次,通过随后的明确性,它有助于规范性调查什么级别的政府——中央还是国家——更适合监管不同类型的权利,以及在多大程度上。第三,它将欧盟与美国的比较与比较宪政的亚里士多德谱系重新联系起来,后者将稳健的分类作为维持理性有序分析的必要认知工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
German Law Journal
German Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信