Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance. / Abat Ninet, Antoni; Gardner, James A.

In: International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2016, p. 378-410.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Abat Ninet, A & Gardner, JA 2016, 'Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance', International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 378-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow036

APA

Abat Ninet, A., & Gardner, J. A. (2016). Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(2), 378-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow036

Vancouver

Abat Ninet A, Gardner JA. Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016;14(2):378-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow036

Author

Abat Ninet, Antoni ; Gardner, James A. / Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance. In: International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 378-410.

Bibtex

@article{fce458b5be7c47a6970d7cca44ee12b6,
title = "Distinctive identity claims in federal systems: Judicial policing of subnational variance",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, federalism, autonomy, intergovernmental relations, constitutional court, comparative constitutional law",
author = "{Abat Ninet}, Antoni and Gardner, {James A.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1093/icon/mow036",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "378--410",
journal = "International Journal of Constitutional Law",
issn = "1474-2640",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

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