Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance. / Abat Ninet, Antoni; Gardner, James A.
I: International Journal of Constitutional Law, Bind 14, Nr. 2, 2016, s. 378-410.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance
AU - Abat Ninet, Antoni
AU - Gardner, James A.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - It is characteristic of federal states that the scope of subnational power and autonomy are subjects of frequent dispute, and that disagreements over the reach of national and subnational power may be contested in a wide and diverse array of settings. Subnational units determined to challenge nationally imposed limits on their power typically have at their disposal many tools with which to press against formal boundaries. Federal systems, moreover, frequently display a surprising degree of tolerance for subnational obstruction, disobedience, and other behaviors intended to expand subnational authority and influence, even over national objection. This tolerance, however, has limits. In this article, we examine a set of rulings by national constitutional courts invalidating formalized claims by subnational units to a distinctive subnational identity. The emphatically negative reactions of these courts suggest that the legal formalization of distinctive identity claims is perceived by courts to pose an unusually acute threat to the state.
AB - It is characteristic of federal states that the scope of subnational power and autonomy are subjects of frequent dispute, and that disagreements over the reach of national and subnational power may be contested in a wide and diverse array of settings. Subnational units determined to challenge nationally imposed limits on their power typically have at their disposal many tools with which to press against formal boundaries. Federal systems, moreover, frequently display a surprising degree of tolerance for subnational obstruction, disobedience, and other behaviors intended to expand subnational authority and influence, even over national objection. This tolerance, however, has limits. In this article, we examine a set of rulings by national constitutional courts invalidating formalized claims by subnational units to a distinctive subnational identity. The emphatically negative reactions of these courts suggest that the legal formalization of distinctive identity claims is perceived by courts to pose an unusually acute threat to the state.
KW - Faculty of Law
KW - federalism, autonomy, intergovernmental relations, constitutional court, comparative constitutional law
U2 - 10.1093/icon/mow036
DO - 10.1093/icon/mow036
M3 - Journal article
VL - 14
SP - 378
EP - 410
JO - International Journal of Constitutional Law
JF - International Journal of Constitutional Law
SN - 1474-2640
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 154450172