Strategic interaction among courts within the preliminary reference process - Stage 1: National court preemptive opinions

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 527-550

  Nyikos, Stacy A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745479402     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: 14756765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00627.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alter, K. (2001). Establishing the supremacy of European law: The making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, D.W.K. (1995). References to the European Court. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
3. Börzel, T. (2001). Non-compliance in the European Union: Pathology or statistical artifact? Journal of European Public Policy 8: 803-824.
4. Colvin, C.M. (1991-1992). Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd. v. Grogan: Irish abortion law and the free movement of services in the European Community. Fordham International Law Journal 15: 476-525.
5. Epstein, L. & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
6. Ferejohn, J. (1995). Law, legislation and positive political theory. In J. Banks & E.A. Hanushek (eds), Modern political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Green, D.E. & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Huber, J. (1996). Rationalizing parliament: Legislative institutions and party politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Jarvis, M.A. (1998). The application of EC law by national courts: The free movement of goods. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11. Jönsson, C. & Tallberg, J. (1998). Compliance and post-agreement bargaining. European Journal of International Relations 4: 371-408.
12. Kinder, D.R. & Sanders, L.M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. McGuire, K. & Palmer, B. (1995). Issue fluidity on the US Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 89: 691-702.
14. Moore, M. (1998). Freedom of movement and migration workers - Social security: An overview of the court's jurisprudence, 1992-1997. Common Market Law Review 35: 409-457.
15. Murphy, W.F. (1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A. & Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567-583.
17. Nyikos, S.A. (2003a). The European Court of Justice and National Courts: Opportunities, Necessities and Strategic Interaction within the Preliminary Reference Process. Unpublished manuscript.
18. Nyikos, S.A. (2003b). The preliminary reference process: National court implementation, changing opportunity structure and litigant desistment. European Union Politics 4:397-420.
19. Nyikos, S.A. & Palmer, B. (2001). The European Court of Justice and US Supreme Court: Issue Creation and Agenda-setting Mechanisms on Constitutional Courts. Paper presented at Annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Palmer Hilton Hotel, Chicago, IL.
20. Plötner, J. (1998). Report on France. In A.-M. Slaughter, A. Stone Sweet & J.H.H. Weiler (eds), The European Court and national courts: Doctrine and jurisprudence: Legal change in its social context. Oxford: Hart.
21. Schermers, H.G. & Waelbroeck, D.F. (1992). Judicial protection in the European Community (5th edn). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation.
22. Segal, J.A. & Spaeth, H.J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Shapiro, I. (1995). The Supreme Court decisions. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
24. Stone Sweet, A. (1998). A comment on Vanberg rules, dispute resolution and strategic behavior. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 327-338.
25. Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges: Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Stone Sweet, A. & Brunell, T.L. (1998a). Constructing a supranational constitution: Dispute resolution and governance in the European Community. American Political Science Review 92: 63-82.
27. Stone Sweet, A. & Brunell, T.L. (1998b). The European Court and the national courts: A statistical analysis of preliminary references, 1961-1995. Journal of European Public Policy 51: 66-97.
28. Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29. Ulmer, S.S. (1982). Issue fluidity in the US Supreme Court: A conceptual analysis. In S.C. Halpern & C.M. Lamb (eds), Supreme Court activism and restraint. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
30. Vanberg, G. (1998). Reply to Stone Sweet. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 339-346.
31. Volcansek, M.L. (1986). Judicial politics in Europe: An impact analysis. New York: Peter Lang.
32. Weiler, J.H.H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal 100: 2403-2483.