Diálogos Judiciales e Interdisciplinarios en el Derecho Europeo

  1. Joxerramon Bengoetxea 1
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

Revue:
Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-legal Studies

ISSN: 1988-0847

Année de publication: 2015

Titre de la publication: Estudios Críticos de la Administración de Justicia

Volumen: 7

Número: 1

Pages: 160-183

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-legal Studies

Résumé

Este trabajo aborda la problemática del diálogo judicial combinando las perspectivas que ofrecen la sociología jurídica y la teoría crítica del derecho. Se distinguen diversas acepciones de diálogo judicial y se esbozan los posibles programas de investigación que pueden generar. El diálogo judicial como razonamiento judicial y argumentación jurídica en sistemas de cooperación entre distintas jurisdicciones se aplica al contexto europeo marcado por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea y por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

Références bibliographiques

  • Andenas, M. y Bjorge, E., 2011.National Implementation of ECHR Rights: Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Convention. In: A. Follesdal, B. Schlütter y G. Ulfstein, dir., The European Court of Human Rights in a National European and Global Context. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Baudenbacher, C., 2004. The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue. Fordham International Law Journal, 28 (2).
  • Bell, J., 2012. The Argumentative Status of Foreign Legal Arguments.Utrecht Law Review, 8 (2), pp. 8-19. Disponible en: http://www.utrechtlawreview.org
  • Bengoetxea, J. y Jung, H., eds., 2012. Autonomy and Heteronomy of the Judiciary.Oñati Socio-Legal Series, sp. iss.
  • Dyevre, A., 2012.Outline of a Legal Realistic Approach to Legal Integration. Max Weber Fellows Society European University Institute. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2175190.
  • Gelter, M. y Siems, M., 2013. Networks, Dialogue or One-Way Traffic?An Empirical Analysis of Cross-Citations between Ten of Europe’s Highest Courts.Ultrecht Law Review, 8 (2), p. 88-99. También en Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper, 1719183.
  • Helfer, L. y Slaughter, A.-M., 1997. Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication.Yale Law Journal, 107 (2), pp. 273-391.
  • Jung, H., 2009. Recht und kulturelleIdentität – AnmerkungenzurRezeption, Transplantation und Diffusion von Recht.Zeitschriftfür die gesamteStrafrechtswissenschaft, 121, pp. 467-500.
  • Komarek, J. y Avbelj, J., eds., 2012. Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond. Oxford: Hart.
  • Kumm, M., 2005. The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe Before and After the Constitutional Treaty. European Law Journal.
  • Law, D. y Chang, W.-Ch., 2011. The Limits of Global Judicial Dialogue.Washington Law Review, 86.También en Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper, 11-04-02.
  • Madsen, M. y Vauchez, A. 2005. European Constitutionalism at the Cradle. Law and Lawyers in the Construction of a European Political Order (1920-1960). En: A. Jetinghoff y H. Schepel, eds.Lawyers’ Circles.Lawyers and European Legal Integration. The Hague: Elsevier Reed, pp. 15-34.
  • Markesins, B. y Fedkte, J., 2005.The Judge as Comparatist.Tulane Law Review, 80 (1), pp. 76-109.
  • Martinico, G., 2013.The Tangled Complexity of EU Constitutional Process. New York: Routledge.
  • Rosas, A., 2007. The EJC in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1 (2).
  • Sankari, S., 2013. European Court of Justice Legal Reasoning in Context. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
  • Sarmiento, D., 2012. The Silent Lamb and the Dead Wolves: Constitutional Pluralism, Preliminary References and the Role of Silent Judgements in EU Law. En: J. Komarek y J. Avbelj, eds.,Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond. Oxford: Hart, pp. 285-317.
  • Searle, J., 1969. Speech Acts, An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Waldron, J., 2010. Treating like cases alike in the world: the theoretical basis of the demand for legal unity. En: S. Muller y S. Richards, eds.,Highest Courts and Globalisation. Hague Academic Press, p. 109.
  • Zumbansen, P., 2013. Law and Legal Pluralism: Hybridity and Transnational Governance. In: P. Kjaer, P. Jurcys and R. Yatsunami, eds.,Regulatory Hybridization in the Transnational Sphere. Den Haag: Brill.
La source de données: Dialnet