欧盟司法化的法律合理性理论

IF 2.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Julien Bois, Mark Dawson
{"title":"欧盟司法化的法律合理性理论","authors":"Julien Bois, Mark Dawson","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of inter-disciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"823 - 842"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a legally plausible theory of judicialization in the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Julien Bois, Mark Dawson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of inter-disciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Integration\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"823 - 842\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Integration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Integration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190104","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文考察了欧盟司法化文献的发展,认为尽管跨学科合作具有明显的优势,但法律和政治学中的司法化学术在21世纪正在兴起。虽然早期对欧洲法院的政治学研究在法律研究中找到了理论灵感,但法律和政治学的认识论和方法论起点越来越不同。正如文章所说,使用著名的论文,这导致两个学科都对司法变革进行了部分描述,外部有效性有限。文章最后提出了完善司法化跨学科研究的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a legally plausible theory of judicialization in the European Union
ABSTRACT This article examines the development of judicialization literature in the EU arguing that – in spite of the obvious advantages of inter-disciplinary collaboration – scholarship on judicialization in law and political science is drafting apart in the 21st Century. While early political science research on the European Courts found theoretical inspiration in legal research, law and political science have increasingly diverging epistemological and methodological starting points. As the article argues, using prominent papers, this results in both disciplines producing partial accounts of judicial change with limited external validity. The article concludes by offering routes to improving the inter-disciplinary foundations of judicialization research.
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
6.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
52
×
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