Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorHurrelmann, Achimde
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-15T13:59:47Z
dc.date.available2023-11-15T13:59:47Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn2183-2463de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/90507
dc.description.abstractThe concept of constitutional abeyances, originally proposed by Foley (1989), describes aspects of a political system that are left deliberately ambiguous. Foley suggests that the maintenance and management of such areas of "settled unsettlement" are indispensable to prevent and resolve conflict about a polity’s constitutional order. The concept of constitutional abeyances has been used productively to analyze constitutional development in Canada, especially the country’s constitutional crises in the 1980s and 1990s. However, with very few exceptions, it has not been applied to analyze the EU and its treaty development. This article leverages the comparison to Canada to argue that a focus on constitutional abeyances, and their successful or unsuccessful institutional reproduction, provides fresh perspectives for analyzing European integration, including insights into the emergence of the EU's current crises and principles that might guide a political response.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcInternationale Beziehungende
dc.subject.ddcInternational relationsen
dc.subject.otherconstitutional abeyances; historical institutionalism; institutional developmentde
dc.titleConstitutional Abeyances: Reflecting on EU Treaty Development in Light of the Canadian Experiencede
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/6835/3276de
dc.source.journalPolitics and Governance
dc.source.volume11de
dc.publisher.countryPRTde
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozinternationale Beziehungen, Entwicklungspolitikde
dc.subject.classozInternational Relations, International Politics, Foreign Affairs, Development Policyen
dc.subject.thesozKanadade
dc.subject.thesozCanadaen
dc.subject.thesozEUde
dc.subject.thesozEUen
dc.subject.thesozinstitutioneller Wandelde
dc.subject.thesozinstitutional changeen
dc.subject.thesozVerfassungsrechtde
dc.subject.thesozconstitutional lawen
dc.subject.thesozeuropäische Integrationde
dc.subject.thesozEuropean integrationen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10048494
internal.identifier.thesoz10041441
internal.identifier.thesoz10047604
internal.identifier.thesoz10061146
internal.identifier.thesoz10042896
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo241-250de
internal.identifier.classoz10505
internal.identifier.journal787
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc327
dc.source.issuetopicUnited in Uniqueness? Lessons From Canadian Politics for European Union Studiesde
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6835de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/6835
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record