Abstract
AbstractThis paper examines the contribution of German subnational constitutional courts to the judicialization of politics in the German states, known as Länder. This research goal entails three dimensions. First, I have to define and measure judicialization. To accomplish this task, I use an index recently developed by an international group of scholars of comparative politics. Second, based on major theoretical approaches, I identify possible causes that might give reasons for judicialization, namely institutional preconditions and preferences of justices. In a third step, I use a linear regression in order to test the theory empirically and find links between causes and effects of judicial decision-making in subnational constitutional courts. The findings confirm institutionalist approaches that contribute to explaining decision-making in German subnational constitutional courts.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Political Science and International Relations
Reference55 articles.
1. Brodocz, A. 2006. Balancen der Macht. Über die Deutungsmacht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in den 50er Jahren. In Die Deutungsmacht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, ed. H. Vorländer, 175–204. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
2. Brouard, S., and C. Hönnige. 2017. Constitutional Courts as Veto Players: Lessons from the United States, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research 56 (3): 529–552.
3. Clayton, C.W. 1999. The Supreme Court and Political Jurisprudence: New and Old Institutionalisms. In Supreme Court Decision-Making. New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. C.W. Clayton and H. Gillman, 15–42. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
4. Cohen, J. 1992. A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin 112 (1): 155–159.
5. Delledonne, G. 2012. Subnational Constitutionalism: A Matter of Review. Perspectives on Federalism 4(2): 294–316.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献