显而易见的矛盾心理:对德国联邦宪法法院2021年5月5日判决的评论

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Philip M. Bender
{"title":"显而易见的矛盾心理:对德国联邦宪法法院2021年5月5日判决的评论","authors":"Philip M. Bender","doi":"10.54648/euro2021013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Inspired by the recent activation of the ultra vires review of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the article analyses one of its restrictive elements: the concept of obviousness and its concretization through objective arbitrariness. These concepts are used with good intentions insofar as the ultra vires review requires some conceptualization of deference. But they are incapable of fulfilling this purpose: they disregard the expressive function of law, grant either too much or no deference, and are incompatible with each other. Instead, the substantive standards of structural significance and openness, combined with the procedural rule of unanimity, could serve the purpose of deference in a better and less conflictual way.\nDeference, Ultra Vires Review, Unanimity, Expressive Function of Law, Arbitrariness, Obviousness, Structural Significance, Openness, Control of Integration, Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 5 May 2020","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambivalence of Obviousness: Remarks on the Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 5 May 2021\",\"authors\":\"Philip M. Bender\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2021013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Inspired by the recent activation of the ultra vires review of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the article analyses one of its restrictive elements: the concept of obviousness and its concretization through objective arbitrariness. These concepts are used with good intentions insofar as the ultra vires review requires some conceptualization of deference. But they are incapable of fulfilling this purpose: they disregard the expressive function of law, grant either too much or no deference, and are incompatible with each other. Instead, the substantive standards of structural significance and openness, combined with the procedural rule of unanimity, could serve the purpose of deference in a better and less conflictual way.\\nDeference, Ultra Vires Review, Unanimity, Expressive Function of Law, Arbitrariness, Obviousness, Structural Significance, Openness, Control of Integration, Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 5 May 2020\",\"PeriodicalId\":43955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以德国联邦宪法法院最近激活的越权审查为启发,分析了其制约因素之一:明显性概念及其通过客观任意性的具体化。这些概念的使用是出于良好的意图,因为越权审查需要一些顺从的概念化。但它们无法实现这一目的:它们无视法律的表达功能,要么给予太多的尊重,要么不给予尊重,而且彼此不相容。相反,结构重要性和开放性的实质性标准,加上一致同意的程序规则,可以以更好和更少冲突的方式达到尊重的目的。顺从、越权审查、一致性、法律的表达功能、任意性、明显性、结构意义、开放性、一体化控制,德国联邦宪法法院2020年5月5日判决
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ambivalence of Obviousness: Remarks on the Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 5 May 2021
Inspired by the recent activation of the ultra vires review of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the article analyses one of its restrictive elements: the concept of obviousness and its concretization through objective arbitrariness. These concepts are used with good intentions insofar as the ultra vires review requires some conceptualization of deference. But they are incapable of fulfilling this purpose: they disregard the expressive function of law, grant either too much or no deference, and are incompatible with each other. Instead, the substantive standards of structural significance and openness, combined with the procedural rule of unanimity, could serve the purpose of deference in a better and less conflictual way. Deference, Ultra Vires Review, Unanimity, Expressive Function of Law, Arbitrariness, Obviousness, Structural Significance, Openness, Control of Integration, Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 5 May 2020
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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