IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v28y1998i01p63-91_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • GIBSON, JAMES L.
  • CALDEIRA, GREGORY A.

Abstract

Little is known about how ordinary Europeans feel about the central policy-making institutions of the European Union (EU). This has encouraged us to analyse mass attitudes towards the legitimacy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Relying on a cross-time (1992–93) panel analysis, as well as a cross-institutional analysis (the ECJ, the European Parliament and the high courts of the member states), we discover that (a) the ECJ does not possess a surplus of legitimacy, and it is doubtful whether the legitimacy shortfall is only a short-term function of the row over Maastricht; (b) attitudes toward the ECJ, although in the aggregate fairly stable, changed significantly over the one-year panel survey; (c) the European Parliament has little legitimacy it can share with the ECJ; and (d) although the national high courts do have greater legitimacy, there is little evidence that they are capable of transferring that legitimacy to the ECJ. We conclude with some speculation about whether the ECJ will be able to build greater legitimacy, and the consequences for the EU if the court fails to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A., 1998. "Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 63-91, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:28:y:1998:i:01:p:63-91_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123498000106/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin Werner, 2016. "Why is the Court of Justice of the European Union not more Contested? Three Mechanisms of Opposition Abatement," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 1449-1464, November.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:175-197 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. James L. Gibson, 2007. "The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 507-538, November.
    4. Tracy H. Slagter, 2009. "National Parliaments and the ECJ: A View from the Bundestag," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 175-197, January.
    5. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    6. John Hagan & Sanja Kutnjak Ivković, 2006. "War Crimes, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in Belgrade, the Former Yugoslavia, and Beyond," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 605(1), pages 129-151, May.
    7. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    8. Juan A. Mayoral, 2017. "In the CJEU Judges Trust: A New Approach in the Judicial Construction of Europe," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 551-568, May.
    9. Clifford J. Carrubba, 2003. "The European Court of Justice, Democracy, and Enlargement," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 75-100, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:28:y:1998:i:01:p:63-91_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.