English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Of all the academic journal articles that I have read in 2016 none has pushed me to think harder about EU law than one which does not mention EU law at all. It is ‘Distinctive Identity Claims in Federal Systems: Judicial Policing of Subnational Variance’ by Antoni Abat i Ninet and James A. Gardner.1 The title, focusing on ‘distinctive identity claims, captures vividly what the article’s main concern is (which is not always the case). Subnational units possess a range of techniques and strategies for asserting their claim to distinctive treatment within the wider federal arrangement. There must, however, be limits to their latitude to go their own way – without such limits, the foundations of the federal system will crumble. The article examines a group of rulings by national constitutional courts which involve refusal to grant distinctive treatment on the terms claimed by a subnational unit. These rulings, the authors claim, reveal judicial anxiety to protect the state against attempts to subvert its (national) authority, even if, as they show, the legislature and/or the executive of the State concerned might be noticeably more accommodating to the claims advanced.

Distinctive Identity Claims, Article 4(2) TEU (and a Fleetingly Sad Nod to Brexit)