Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPócza, Kálmán
dc.contributor.authorCsapodi, Márton
dc.contributor.authorDobos, Gábor
dc.contributor.authorGyulai, Attila
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-10T11:28:15Z
dc.date.available2025-03-10T11:28:15Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.urihttps://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/99324
dc.description.abstractRecent confrontations between constitutional courts and parliamentary majorities in several European countries have attracted international interest in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. Some political actors have argued that courts have assumed too much power and politics has been extremely judicialized. This volume accurately and systematically examines the extent to which this aggregation of power may have constrained the dominant political actors’ room for manoeuvre. To explore the diversity and measure the strength of judicial decisions, the contributors to this work have elaborated a methodology to give a more nuanced picture of the practice of constitutional adjudication in Central and Eastern Europe between 1990 and 2020. The work opens with an assessment of the existing literature on empirical analysis of judicial decisions with a special focus on the Central and Eastern European region, and a short summary of the methodology of the project. This is followed by ten country studies and a concluding chapter providing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the results. A further nine countries are explored in the counterpart volume to this book: Constitutional Review in Western Europe: Judicial-Legislative Relations in Comparative Perspective. The collection will be an invaluable resource for those working in the areas of empirical legal research and comparative constitutional law, as well as political scientists interested in judicial politics.en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issuesen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issues::LAM Comparative lawen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law::LND Constitutional and administrative law: generalen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law::LNA Legal systems: general::LNAA Legal systems: courts and proceduresen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of lawen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JP Politics and government::JPH Political structure and processes::JPHC Constitution: government and the stateen_US
dc.subject.otherConstitutional Law,Constitutional Politics,Constitutional Review,Judicial-legislative Relations,Constitutional Courts,The Judiciaryen_US
dc.titleChapter 1 Constitutional review and judicial-legislative relations in new democraciesen_US
dc.typechapter
oapen.identifier.doi10.4324/9781003399483-1en_US
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bben_US
oapen.relation.isPartOfBook1b39e8f7-8718-4bd5-8342-b40ddde534d2en_US
oapen.relation.isbn9781032506609en_US
oapen.relation.isbn9781032506616en_US
oapen.imprintRoutledgeen_US
oapen.pages28en_US
oapen.remark.publicFunder name: Mathias Corvinus Collegium Foundation
peerreview.anonymitySingle-anonymised
peerreview.idbc80075c-96cc-4740-a9f3-a234bc2598f1
peerreview.open.reviewNo
peerreview.publish.responsibilityPublisher
peerreview.review.stagePre-publication
peerreview.review.typeProposal
peerreview.reviewer.typeInternal editor
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
peerreview.titleProposal review
oapen.review.commentsTaylor & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required).


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record