{"title":"欧盟法院在“基本社会权利”裁决中的比例修辞和新自由主义理性","authors":"Juan J. Garcia Blesa","doi":"10.1093/lril/lrad010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article studies the rhetorical construction of proportionality discourse in controversial social rights cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union. It argues that neoliberal rationality controls the Court’s proportionality discourse. That rationality operates through eliding social conflict and excluding egalitarian approaches to social rights, which are rhetorically re-imagined as subsidiary instruments of competition and business.","PeriodicalId":43782,"journal":{"name":"London Review of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proportionality rhetoric and neoliberal rationality in the ‘fundamental social rights’ adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Juan J. Garcia Blesa\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lril/lrad010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article studies the rhetorical construction of proportionality discourse in controversial social rights cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union. It argues that neoliberal rationality controls the Court’s proportionality discourse. That rationality operates through eliding social conflict and excluding egalitarian approaches to social rights, which are rhetorically re-imagined as subsidiary instruments of competition and business.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Proportionality rhetoric and neoliberal rationality in the ‘fundamental social rights’ adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union
This article studies the rhetorical construction of proportionality discourse in controversial social rights cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union. It argues that neoliberal rationality controls the Court’s proportionality discourse. That rationality operates through eliding social conflict and excluding egalitarian approaches to social rights, which are rhetorically re-imagined as subsidiary instruments of competition and business.