¹ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], May 29, 1974, 37 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 271; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Oct. 22, 1986, 73 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 339.Google Scholar

² See Maastricht-Urteil, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], October 12, 1993, 2 BvR 2134 et seq. Google Scholar

³ See generally Baquero, Julio, The Legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the Pluralist Movement, 14 Eur. L.J. 389 (2008); Christoph Schönberger, Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones at Sea, 10 German L.J. 1201 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴ See Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012-653DC, Aug. 9, 2012 (Fr.); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], Apr. 3, 2013, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. 2/12 (Austria); Estonian Supreme Court, decision No. 3-4-1-6-12 ESM Treaty I, 12 July 2012; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Sept. 7, 2011, 2 BvR 987/10; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Sept. 12, 2012, 2 BvR 1390/12; Pringle v. The Gov't of Ireland [2012] IESC 47 (SC) (Ir.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Mar. 18, 2014, 2 BvR 1390/12.Google Scholar

⁵ For an additional case to the Maastricht-Urteil ruling, see, e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 30, 1952, 1 BvG 396; Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IESC 4 [1987] IR 713 (SC) (Ir.); Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 92-312DC, Apr. 9, 1992 (Fr.); Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 92-312DC, Sept. 2, 1992 (Fr.); Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 92-313DC, Sept. 23, 1992 (Fr.); S.T.C., July 1, 1992 (No. 001/1992) (Spain); Danish Supreme Court, case UfR 1998, 800 Maastricht, decision of 6 April 1998; Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 97-394, Dec. 31, 1997 (Fr.); Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 92-312, Nov. 19, 2004 (Fr.); S.T.C., Dec. 13, 2004 (No. 1/2004) (Spain); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] June 18, 2005, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. G 62/05 (Austria); Slovakian Constitutional Court, case II. U.S. 171/05-175 Constitutional Treaty, decision of 27 February 2008; Consiel constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2007-560, Dec. 20, 2007 (Fr.); Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 30.09.2008 (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Sept. 30, 2008], sp.zn. ÚS 19/08 publ. in: Sbírka nálezů a usnesení Ústavního souda (Czech); Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 03.11.2009 (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Nov. 2, 2009], sp.zn. ÚS 29/09 publ. in: Sbírka nálezů a usnesení Ústavního souda (Czech); Latvian Constitutional Court, case 200835-01 Treaty of Lisbon, decision of 7 April 2009; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], June 30, 2009, 1 BvE 2/08; Cour Constitutionelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision no 58/2009, Mar. 19, 2009, Moniteur Belge [MB] [Official Gazette of Belgium] (Belg.); Cour Constitutionelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] 125/2009, July 16, 2009, M.B. (Belg.); Polish Constitutional Court, case K32/09 Treaty of Lisbon, decision of 23 November 2010; Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. SV 2/08-3 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. 80/08-3 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. G SV 3/08-6 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. G 81/08-6 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. SV 3/08-6 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sept. 30, 2008, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. 81/08-6 (Austria); Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Mar. 11, 2009, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. G 149–152/08-5 (Austria); Cour Constitutionelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision no 156/2009 Treaty of Lisbon III, Oct. 17, 2008; Slovenian Constitutional Court, case Ul-49/08 Treaty of Lisbon, decision of 17 october 2008; Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] June 12, 2010, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VFSLG] No. SV 1/10-9 (Austria).Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court] May 25, 2004, 17/2004 (Hung.); Polish Constitutional Court, Case P 1/05), decision of 27 April 2005; supreme Court of Cyprus, case 294/2005, decision of 7 November 2005; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 18, 2005, 1 BvR 2236/04; Slovakian Constitutional Court, case Pl US 8/04-202, decision of 18 october 2005; Polish Constitutional Court, case u 6/08, decision of 17 December 2009; Polish Constitutional Court, case SK 26/08, decision of 5 October 2010.Google Scholar

⁷ Austerity measures were usually passed by national authorities, but they are no doubt part of the more general European management of the crisis. See Court, Portuguese Constitutional, case 353/2012, decision of 5 July 2012. Portuguese Constitutional Court, case 187/2012, decision of 5 April 2013. S.T.C., Dec. 18, 2004 (No. 215/2014) (Spain).; S.T.C., Oct. 23, 2014 (No. 171/2014) (Spain); Cristina Fasone, Constitutional Courts Facing the Euro Crisis: Italy, Portugal and Spain in a Comparative Perspective (Eur. Univ. Inst. Max Weber Programme, Working Paper No. MWP 2014/25, 2014).Google Scholar

⁸ See, e.g., Petr Bříza, The Czech Republic. The Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty: Decision of 26 November 2008, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 143 (2009); Jan Komarek, The Czech Constitutional Court's Second Decision on the Lisbon Treaty of 3 November 2009, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 345 (2009).Google Scholar

⁹ See, e.g., Neil MacCormick, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 Eur. L.J. 259 (1995); Joseph H.H Weiler, Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, 1 Eur. L.J. 219 (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See, e.g., Carlos Closa & Pablo José Castillo Ortiz, National Courts and Ratification of European Union Treaties, in Multilayered Representation in the Eur. Union. Parliaments, Courts and the Pub. Sphere 129 (Tatjana Evas, Christopher Lord & Ulrike Liebert eds., 2012); Carlos Closa, National Higher Courts and the Ratification of European Union Treaties, 36 West Eur. Pol. 97 (2013); Pablo José Castillo Ortiz, EU Treaties and the Judicial Politics of Nat'l Courts. A Law and Politics Approach (2016).Google Scholar

¹¹ See, e.g., Arthur Dyèvre, European Integration and National Courts: Defending Sovereignty Under Institutional Constraints?, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 139 (2013); Arthur Dyèvre, Judicial Non-Compliance in a Non-Hierarchical Legal Order: Isolated Accident or Omen of Judicial Armageddon? (2012) (revised Mar. 4, 2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2084639.Google Scholar

¹² See Monica Claes & Maartje de Visser, Courts United? On European Judicial Networks, in Lawyering Eur. Eur. Law as A Transnational Soc. Field 75 (Antoine Vauchez & Bruno de Witte eds., 2013); Monica Claes & Maartje de Visser, Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues in European Judicial Networks, 8 Utrecht L. Rev. 100 (2012); Simone Benvuti, National Supreme Courts and the EU Legal Order: Building a European Judicial Community Through Networking, 6 Perspectives on Federalism 1 (2014).Google Scholar

¹³ See Hay, Peter, European Economic Community: Res Judiciata and Precedent in the Court of Justice of the Common Market, 12 Am. J. Comp. L. 404 (1963); Roger-Michel Evallier, Methods and Reasoning of the European Court in its Interpretation of Community Law, 2 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 21 (1965); Stefan Riesenfeld, The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and Community Law: A Pioneer Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Community, 67 Am. J. Int'l L. 504 (1973).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Pappalardo, Aurelio, Decisions of the Italian Courts and the E.E.C. Treaty, 4 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 84 (1967); Evert Alkema, X v. Netherlands fiscal Administration: Netherlands Supreme Court, December 22, 1965, 4 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 444 (1967); Mario Berri, Caisse d'aasurance regionale v. Torrekens. French Cour de Cassation (2e Chambre civile): Decision of December 1, 1965.41, 4 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 237 (1967).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Loewestein, Karl, The Bonn Constitution and the European Community Treaties: A Study on Judicial Frustration, 64 Yale L.J. 805 (1955).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Renaud Dehousse, Integration Through Law Revisited: Some Thoughts on The Juridification of the European Political Process, in The Europeanisation of law: The Legal Effects of European Integration 15 (Francis Snyder ed., 2000).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Anne-Marie Burley & Walter Mattli, Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration, in Debates on European Integration 226 (Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni ed., 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Britta Redher, What is Political About Jurisprudence? Courts, Politics, and Political Science in Europe and the United States, in MPIfG Discussion Paper, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Society 16 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2403 (1991); Geoffrey Garret, International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community's Internal Market, 46 Int'l Org. 533 (1992); Anne-Marie Burley & W. Mattli, Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration, 47 Int'l Org. 41 (1993); Geoffrey Garret, The Politics of Legal Integration in the European Union, 49 Int'l Org. 171 (1995).Google Scholar

²⁰ Some of the most influential works on the court date back to this period. See, e.g., Rasmussen, Hjalte, On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking (1986); Hjalte Rasmussen, Between Self-Restraint and Activism: A Judicial Policy for the European Court, 13 Eur. L. Rev. 28 (1988); Mauro Cappelletti, Is the European Court of Justice Running Wild?, 12 Eur. L. Rev. 4 (1987).Google Scholar

²¹ See Alec Stone Sweet & Thomas Brunell, Constructing a Supranational Constitution: Dispute Resolution and Governance in the European Community, 92 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 63 (1998); Jean-Yves Pitarakis & George Tridimas, Joint Dynamics of Legal and Economic Integration in the European Union, 16 Eur. J. of L. and Econ. 357 (2003); Clifford Carruba & Lacey Murrah, Legal Integration and Use of Preliminary Ruling Process in the European Union, 59 Int'l Org. 399 (2005); Filippo Fontanelli & Giuseppe Martinico, Between Procedural Impermeability and Constitutional Openness: The Italian Constitutional Court and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice, 16 Eur. L.J. 345 (2010); Arthur Dyèvre, If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them: The French Constitutional Council's First Reference to the Court of Justice (Jeremy F. v. Premier ministre, 4 April 2013), 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 154 (2014); Michal Bobek, Learning to Talk: Preliminary Rulings, the Courts of the New Member States and the Court of Justice, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1611 (2008); Aida Torres, Melloni in Three Acts: From Dialogue to Monologue, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 308 (2014); François-Xavier Millet, How Much Lenience for How Much Cooperation? On the First Preliminary Reference of the French Constitutional Council to the Court of Justice, 51 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 195 (2014).Google Scholar

²² Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet & Joseph H.H. Weiler, The European Court and National Courts—Doctrine and Jurisprudence (1997).Google Scholar

²³ See Everling, Ulrich, The Maastricht Judgement of the German Federal Constitutional Court and its Significance for the Development of the European Union, 14 Y.B. of Eur. L. 1 (1994); Matthias Herdegen, Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional Restraints for an Ever Closer Union, 31 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 235 (1994); Steve Boom, The European Union After the Maastricht Decision: Will Germany Be the ‘Virginia of Europe‘?, 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 177 (1995); Dieter Grimm, The European Court of Justice and National Courts: The German Constitutional Perspective After The Maastricht Decision, 3 Colum. J. Eur. L. 229 (1996); MacCormick, supra note 9; Kevin Makowski, Solange III: the German Federal Constitutional Court's Decision on Accession to the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, 16 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 155 (1995); Meessen, Karl M., Hedging European Integration: the Maastricht Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 17 Fordham Int'l L.J. 515 (1993); Weiler, supra note 9; Manfred Wiegandt, Germany's International Integration: The Rulings of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Maastricht Treaty and the Out-of-Area Deployment of German Troops, 10 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 889 (1995); Joachim Wieland, Kaleidoscope: Germany in the European Union—The Maastricht Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, 5 Eur. J. Int'l L. 259 (1994).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Beck, Gunnar, The Lisbon Judgement of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict Between Right and Right in Which There Is No Praetor, 17 Eur. L.J. 470 (2011); Roland Bieber, ‘An Association of Sovereign States’ Comments on the German Constitutional Court's Decision on the Lisbon Treaty, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 391 (2009); Bříza, supra note 8; Eriksen, Erik O. & Fossum, John E., Bringing European Democracy Back In—Or How to Read the German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Treaty Ruling, 17 Eur. L.J. 153 (2011); Dieter Grimm, Defending Sovereign Statehood Against Transforming the European Union. Comments on the German Constitutional Court's Decision on the Lisbon Treaty, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 353 (2009); Alfred Grosser, The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case: Germany's ‘Sonderweg’: An Outsider's Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1263 (2009); Philipp Kiiver, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court: A Court-Ordered Strengthening of the National Legislature in the EU, 16 Eur. L.J. 578 (2010); See supra note 8; Tobias Lock, Why the European Union is not a State. Some Critical Remarks: Comments on the German Constitutional Court's Decision on the Lisbon Treaty, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 407 (2009); Matthias Niedobitek, The Lisbon Case of 30 June 2009—A Comment from the European Law Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1267 (2009); Schönberger, supra note 3; Frank schorkopf, The European Union as An Association of Sovereign States: Karlsruhe's Ruling on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 German L.J. 1219 (2009); Ivo Slosarcik, The Treaty of Lisbon & the Czech Constitutional Court: Act II, CEPS Pol. Brief 197/27 (2009); Christian Tomuschat, The Ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 German L.J. 1259 (2009); Ton Van den Brink, The Czech Constitutional Court and the Treaty of Lisbon, 3 Tijdschrift voor Constitutioneel Recht 315 (2010); Mattias Wendel, Lisbon Before the Courts: Comparative Perspectives, 7 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 96 (2011); Christian Wohlfahrt, The Lisbon Case: A Critical Summary, 10 German L.J. 1277 (2009).Google Scholar

²⁵ See Tomuschat, Christian, Inconsistencies—The German Federal Constitutional Court on the European Arrest Warrant, 2 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 209 (2006); Angelika Nußberger, Poland: The Constitutional Tribunal on the Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, 6 Int'l. J. Const. L. 162 (2008); Nicolas Nohlen, Germany: The European Arrest Warrant Case, 6 Int'l. J. Const. L. 153 (2008); Daniel Sarmiento, European Union: The European Arrest Warrant and the Quest for Constitutional Coherence, 6 Int'l. J. Const. L. 171 (2008); Aida Torres, Constitutional Dialogue on the European Arrest Warrant: The Spanish Constitutional Court Knocking on Luxembourg's Door, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 105 (2012).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Anne-Marie Slaughter & Walter Mattli, The Role of National Courts in the Process of European Integration: Accounting for Judicial Preferences and Constraints, in The European Court and National Courts—Doctrine and Jurisprudence 253 (Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet & Joseph H.H. Weiler eds., 1997).Google Scholar

²⁷ See generally Volcansek, Mary, Judicial Politics in Europe: An Impact Analysis (1986).Google Scholar

²⁸ Karen Alter, Explaining National Courts Acceptance of European Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of Theories of Legal Integration, in The European Court and National Courts—Doctrine and Jurisprudence 277 (Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet & Joseph H.H. Weiler eds., 1997). See also the work of other political scientists, e.g., Alec Stone Sweet & Wayne Sandholtz, European Integration and Supranational Governance, 4 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 297 (1997); Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet, European Integration and Supranational Governance (1998); Stone Sweet and Brunell, supra note 22. For a review of this renewed form of neo-functionalism, see Wayne Sandholtz & Alec Stone Sweet, Neo-Functionalism and Supranational Governance, in The Oxford Handbook of the European Union 18 (Erik Jones, Anand Menon & Stephen Weatherill eds., 2012).Google Scholar

²⁹ See supra note 28.Google Scholar

³⁰ Slaughter & Mattli, supra note 27.Google Scholar

³¹ See supra note 26.Google Scholar

³² See Garret, International Cooperation, supra note 19; Garret, The Politics of Legal Integration, supra note 19.Google Scholar

³³ See Simon Hix & Bj&;rn H&;yland, The Political System of the European Union 97 (2011).Google Scholar

³⁴ Some of Weiler's pieces soon became landmark studies on European legal integration. See, e.g., Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism, 1 Y.B. of Eur. L. 268 (1981); Weiler, supra note 19; Joseph H.H. Weiler, A Quiet Revolution: The European Court and its Interlocutors, 26 Comp. Pol. Stud. 510 (1994); Joseph H.H. Weiler, Europa, fin de siglo (1995); Weiler, supra note 9; Joseph H.H. Weiler, European Neo-constitutionalism: In Search of Foundations for the European Constitutional Order, 44 Pol. Stud. 517 (1996); Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes have an Emperor?‘ and Other Essays on European Integration (1999); Joseph H.H. Weiler, A Constitution for Europe? Some Hard Choices, 40 J. Common Market Stud. 563 (2002). Not all of these, however, explicitly take a Law in Context approach.Google Scholar

³⁵ Arthur Dyèvre, Making Sense of Judicial Lawmaking: A Theory of Theories of Adjudication, EUI Working Papers 2008/9 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Alter supra note 28.Google Scholar

³⁷ Weiler, The Constitution of Europe, supra note 34.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Popelier, Patricia, Armen Mazmanyan & Werner Vandenbruwaene, The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance (2013).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Grimmel, Andreas, Integration and the Context of Law: Why the European Court of Justice is not a Political Actor, Les Cahiers Européens de Science Po 3/2011 1, 6 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Brian Tamanaha, Realistic Socio-Legal Theory (1997).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Sweet, Alec Stone, Constitutional Dialogues in the European Community, in The European Court and National Courts—Doctrine and Jurisprudence 305, 309 (Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet & Joseph H.H. Weiler eds., 2003).Google Scholar

⁴² For a deeper reflection on the Europeanisation of legal scholarship, see the excellent contribution by Armin Von Bogdandy, National Legal Scholarship in the European Area—A Manifesto, 12 Int'l. J. Const. L. 614 (2012).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, Le conseil constitutionnel et le droit européen, 57 Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel 23 (2004); François Luchaire, Le Conseil Constitutionnel devant la Constitution pour l'Europe, 59 Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel 465 (2004); Olivier Dupéré, Jurisprudence constitutionnelle, Le contrôle de constitutionnalité du droit dérivé de l'Union Européenne. Lectures croisées par le Conseil d'état et le Conseil Constitutionnel, 61 Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel 147 (2005); Guillaume Protière and Philippe Blachèr, Le Conseil Constitutionnel, gardien de la Constitution face aux directives communautaires, 69 Revue Française de Droit constitutionnel 123 (2007); Florence Chaltiel, Droit constitutionnel européen, 82 Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel 367 (2009); Donnarumma, Maria R., Intégration européenne et sauvegarde de l'identité nationale dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice et des Cours constitutionnelles, 84 Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel 719 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Juan F. López Aguilar, Maastricht y la problemática de la reforma de la Constitución (Unión Europea, derechos de los extranjeros y reforma constitucional: teoría y case study, 77 Revista de Estudios Políticos 57 (1992); Manuel Aragón, La Constitución Española y el Tratado de la Unión Europea: la reforma de la Constitución, 42 Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 9 (1994).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia & Santiago Ripol, Continuismo y ¿novedad? En la doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional sobre el Derecho de la Unión Europea, 12 Papeles de Derecho Europeo e Integración Regional (2012); Antonio López Castillo, La jurisprudencia iuscomunitaria del Tribunal Constitucional a doce años de la integración española en las Comunidades Europeas, 99 Revista de Estudios Políticos 189 (1998).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Antonio López Castillo, Entre europeización y germanización. De la mutante jurisprudencia del tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán en perspectiva, 165 Revista de Estudios Políticos 117 (2014); Antonio López Castillo Prejudicializando… Comentario de la primera cuestión prejudicial del Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán, 33 Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 315 (2014).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See supra note 23.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See supra note 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Bříza, supra note 8; Slosarcik, supra note 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See, e.g., Baquero, Julio, A Judicial Götterdämmerung. The Lisbon Decision of the German Constitutional Court, in Karlruhe's Europe 78 (Katrin Auel & Julio Baquero eds., 2009); Bieber, supra note 24; Grimm, supra note 24; Grosser, supra note 24; Kiiver, supra note 24.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Sadurski, Wojciech, ‘Solange, Chapter 3‘: Constitutional Courts in Central Europe—Democracy—European Union, 14 EUR. L.J. 1 (2008); Wendel, supra note 24; Tajtana Evas & ulrike Liebert, Enhancing Democratic Legitimacy Through Constitutional Pluralism? The Czech, German and Latvian Lisbon Rulings in Dialogue, in Multilayered Representation in the European Union 107 (Tajtana Evas, Ulrike Liebert & Christopher Lord eds., 2012); Castillo, Pablo J. Ortiz, Playing the Judicial Card. Litigation Strategies During the Process of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, 20 Eur. L.J. 630 (2014).Google Scholar

⁵² See Claes, Monica, The National Courts Mandate in the European Constitution (2006).Google Scholar

⁵³ See Dyèvre, supra note 35.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Mayoral, Juan A., La politización de la aplicación judicial del derecho europeo: un estudio del Tribunal Supremo Español, 161 Revista de Estudios Políticos 117 (2013); Castillo, Pablo J. Ortiz, La Política Judicial del Tribunal Constitucional español en los procesos de ratificación de Tratados de la Unión Europea: aproximación desde un nuevo realismo jurídico, 159 Revista de Estudios Políticos 107 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Unfortunately, sociological works about the topic are still scarcer than political science ones. These are usually pieces that either just mention NHCs incidentally, or use sociological approaches only to a certain extent, combined with other disciplinary perspectives. See, e.g., Antonin Cohen & Antoine Vauchez, The Social Construction of Law: The European Court of Justice and Its Legal Revolution Revisited, 7 Ann. Rev. of L. & Soc. Sci. 417 (2011); Antoine Vauchez, The Transnational Politics of Judicialization. Van Gend en Loos and the Making of EU Polity, 16 Eur. L.J. 1 (2010); Jiří Přibáň, Multiple Sovereignty: On Europe's Self-Constitutionalization and Legal Self-Reference, 23 Ratio Juris 41 (2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Garret, International Cooperation, supra note 19; Garret, The Politics of Legal Integration, supra note 19; Geoffrey Garret & Barry Weingast, Ideas, Interests and Institutions: Constructing the Ecs Internal Market, in Ideas and Foreign Pol'y 173 (Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane eds., 1993).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Garret, The Politics of Legal Integration, supra note 19, at 174.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Stone Sweet criticized the model by suggesting that “nothing in it helps to understand ECJ-national court interaction.” Stone Sweet, supra note 41, at 310.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Alter, supra note 28.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See id., supra note 28.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Alter, supra note 28, at 242; Alec Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of Europe 22 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶² See Alter, supra note 28, at 64; Stone Sweet, supra note 41, at 327.Google Scholar

⁶³ Slaughter & Mattli, supra note 26.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Slaughter & Mattli, supra note 26, at 258.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Schimmelfenning, Frank, Competition and Community: Constitutional Courts, Rhetorical Action, and the Institutionalization of Human Rights in the European Union, 13 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 1247 (2006); J.A. Mayoral, U. Jaremba & T. Nowak, Creating EU Law Judges: The Role of Generational Differences, Legal Education and Judicial Career Paths in National Judges' Assessment Regarding EU Law Knowledge, 21 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 1120 (2014).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Corkin, Nicola, Europeanization of Judicial Review (2015).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Closa & Castillo Ortiz, supra note 10; Closa, supra note 10; Castillo Ortiz, supra note 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Dyèvre, European Integration and National Courts, supra note 11.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Dyevre, Judicial Non-Compliance, supra note 11.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The early work by Stein can be seen as an outstanding example of interdisciplinary work. Eric Stein, Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution, 75 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 (1981). More recently, see the more law-oriented work by Michal Bobek. The Impact of the European Mandate of Ordinary Courts on the Position of Constitutional Courts, in Const. Conversations in Eur. 287 (Monica Claes, Maartje de Visser, Patricia Popelier & Catherine Van de Heyning eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Arthur Dyèvre, The German Federal Constitutional Court and European Judicial Politics, 34 West Eur. Pol. 346 (2011); Castillo ortiz, supra note 51.Google Scholar

⁷² See Komarek, Jan, National Constitutional Courts in the European Constitutional Democracy, 12 Int'l. J. Const. L. 525 (2014); Jan Komarek, The Place of Constitutional Courts in the EU, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 420 (2013). Sometimes the reflection has been expanded to other contexts. See Bogdandy, Armin Von, Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship Between International and Domestic Constitutional Law, 6 Int'l. J. Const. L. 397 (2008); Bilyana Petkova, The Notion of Consensus as a Route to Democratic Adjudication?, 14 Cambridge Y.B Eur. Legal Stud. 663 (2011–2012).Google Scholar

⁷³ See, e.g., Rasmussen, Morten, Rewriting the History of EPL: The New Contribution of Historians, 28 Am. U. L. Rev. 1187 (2013); Bill Davies, Resisting the ECJ: West Germany's Confrontation with European Law, 1949–1979 (2012); Bill Davies, Pushing Back: What Happens When Member States Resist the European Court of Justice? A Multi-Modal Approach to the History of European Law, 21 Contemp. Eur. Hist. 417 (2012); Mark Pollack, The New EU Legal History: What's New, What's Missing, 28 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1257 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Walter Mattli & Anne-Marie Slaughter, Constructing the European Community Legal System from the Ground Up: The Role of Individual Litigants and National Courts (1996), www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/96/9606ind.html (last visited Mar. 23, 2015).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Weiler, supra note 19, at 2409.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Alec Stone Sweet & Thomas Brunell, The European Court and the National Courts. A Statistical Analysis of Preliminary References, 1961–95, 5 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 66, 69 (1998).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Weiler, The Constitution of Europe, supra note 34, at 32.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Weiler, A Constitution for Europe?, supra note 34.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Sadurski, supra note 51.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Baquero, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Deters, Henning, National Constitutional Jurisprudence in a Post-National Europe: The ESM Ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Disavowal of Conflict, 20 Eur. L.J. 204 (2014).Google Scholar

⁸² See MacCormick, supra note 9; Neil MacCormick, Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the European Commonwealth, 16 L. and Phil. 331 (1997).Google Scholar

⁸³ See Walker, Neil, The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, 65 Mod. L. Rev. 317 (2002); N. Walker, Reconciling MacCormick: Constitutional Pluralism and the Unity of Practical Reason, 24 Ratio Juris 369 (2011); Barber, Nicholas W., Legal Pluralism and the European Union, 12 Eur. L.J. 306 (2006); Miguel Maduro, A constitugao Plural-Constitucionalismo e União Europeia (Principia 2006); Miguel Maduro, Interpreting European Law—Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism (IE Law School, Working Paper No. WPLS08-08, 2008); Giuseppe Martinico, Multiple Loyalties and Dual Preliminarity: The Pains of Being a Judge in a Multilevel Legal Order, 10 Int'l. J. Const. L. 871 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Evas & Liebert, supra note 51.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Fossum, John E. & Agustín J. Menéndez, The Constitution's Gift (2011).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Martinico, Giuseppe, The Tangled Complexity of the EU Constitutional Process: The Frustrating Knot of Europe (2013).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See, e.g., Meessen, supra note 23; MacCormick, supra note 9; Per Lachmann, The Treaty of Maastricht vs. the Danish Constitution, 68 Nordic J. Int'l L. 365 (1998); Hjalte Rasmussen, Confrontation or Peaceful Co-existence? On the Danish Supreme Court's Maastricht Ratification Judgment, in Judicial Review in European Union Law 377 (David O'Keeffe ed., 2000); Lock, supra note 24; Bříza, supra note 8.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Wendel, supra note 24.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Ortiz, Castillo, supra note 51.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Closa & Castillo Ortiz, supra note 10.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Ortiz, Castillo, supra note 10.Google Scholar

⁹² Krystyna Kowalik-Banczyk, Should We Polish It Up/The Polish Constitutional Court and the Idea of Supremacy of EU Law, 6 German L.J. 1355 (2005); Sadurski, supra note 51.Google Scholar

⁹³ See, e.g., Pollicino, Oreste, The Relationship Between the National Legal Order and the European Legal Order in the Case Law of the Italian Constitutional Court: A Selection of the Most Recent Relevant Decisions, Italian Y.B. Int'l L. 323 (2011–2012); Kowalik-Banczyk, supra note 92.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Komarek, Jan, European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: In Search of the Limits of ‘Contrapunctual Principles,‘ 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9 (2007); Massimo Fichera, The European Arrest Warrant and the Sovereign State: A Marriage of Convenience?, 15 Eur. L.J. 70 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Sometimes these works include the analysis of both decisions on EU treaties and other decisions related to EU law. See Albi, Anneli, Selected EU Judgments by CEE Constitutional Courts: Lessons on How (Not) to Amend Constitutions?, 3 Croatian Y.B. of Eur. L. and Pol'y 39 (2007); Anneli Albi, From the Banana Saga to a Sugar Saga and Beyond: Could the Post-Communist Constitutional Courts Teach the EU a Lesson in the Rule of Law?, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 791 (2010); Mattias Wendel, Comparative Reasoning and the Making of a Common Constitutional Law: EU-related Decisions of National Constitutional Courts in a Comparative Perspective, 11 Int'l. J. Const. L. 981 (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Evas, Tatjana, Judicial Application of European Union Law in Post-Communist Countries: The Cases of Estonia and Latvia (2012).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See, e.g., Armin von Bogdandy & Schill Stephan, Overcoming Absolute Primacy: Respect for National Identity Under the Lisbon Treaty, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1 (2011); Darinka Piqani, The Role of National Constitutional Courts in Issues of Compliance, in Compliance and the Enforcement of EU Law 132 (Marise Cremona ed., 2012); Darinka piqani, Arguments for a Holistic Approach in European Constitutionalism: What Role for National Institutions in Avoiding Conflicts Between National Constitutions and EU Law?, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 493 (2012). Kumm and Ferreres also emphasized the possibilities that the Constitutional Treaty offered to channel judicial conflict. See Kumm, Mattias & Ferreres, Victor, The Primacy Clause of the Constitutional Treaty and the Future of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union, 3 Int'l. J. Const. L. 473 (2005).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Maduro, Miguel, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution: A Critical Reading of Article 30 EC 30 et seq. (1998).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Christiaan Timmermans, The Pluralist, Multilevel/Multiplayer Approach and the Primacy Principle, in Constitutionalising the EU Jud. Sys.: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh 15 (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas & Nils Wahl eds., 2012); Allan Rosas, The European Court of Justice in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue, 1 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 1 (2007); Pollicino, supra note 94. Please note that despite the connotations of the concept, many of the authors framing inter-court relations in terms of “dialogue” acknowledge also, to different extents, the existence of conflict.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Barber, supra note 83, at 306.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Bobek, Michal, Landtová, Holubec, and the Problem of an Uncooperative Court: Implications for the Preliminary Rulings Procedure, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 54 (2014); Jan Komarek, Playing with Matches: The Czech Constitutional Court Declares a Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU Ultra Vires, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 323 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Alter, supra note 28; Dyèvre, European Integration and National Courts, supra note 11; Dyèvre, Judicial Non-Compliance, supra note 11; Castillo Ortiz, EU Treaties, supra note 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Komarek, supra note 72, at 422; Komarek, supra note 101, at 324, Dyèvre, European Integration and National Courts, supra note 11, at 142.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Mattias Wendel, Judicial Restraint and the Return to Openness: The Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the ESM and the Fiscal Treaty of 12 September 2012, 14 German L.J. 21 (2013); Susanne Schmidt, A Sense of Déjà Vu? The FCC's Preliminary European Stability Mechanism Verdict, 14 German L.J. 1 (2013); Karsten Schneider, Yes, But… One More Thing: Karlsruhe's Ruling on the European Stability Mechanism, 14 German L.J. 53 (2013); Gunnar Beck, The Court of Justice, the Bundesverfassungsgericht and Legal Reasoning During the Euro Crisis: The Rule of Law as a Fair-Weather Phenomenon, 20 Eur. Pub. L. 539 (2014); Elaine Fahey & Samo Bardutzky, Judicial Review of Eurozone Law: The Adjudication of Postnational Norms in the EU Courts, Plural—A Case Study of the European Stability Mechanism (School, Amsterdam L. Legal Stud. Research Paper No. 2013-35, 2013); Deters, supra note 81.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See Fasone, supra note 7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See Bruno de Witte & Thomas Beukers, The Court of Justice Approves the Creation of the European Stability Mechanism Outside the EU Legal Order: Pringle, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 805 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Wendel, Mattias, Exceeding Judicial Competence in the Name of Democracy: The German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 263 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Fabbrini, Federico, The Euro-Crisis and the Courts: Judicial Review and the Political Process in Comparative Perspective, 32 Berkeley J. Int'l L.64 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Loewestein, supra note 15.Google Scholar