Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the role played by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the process of European integration. From the perspective of “Integration-Through-Law” (ITL), the integration process has been led by pivotal rulings by the ECJ. ITL suggests the possible spill-over from economic integration toward political integration by the push of judicial authority. In this paper, however, it is argued that there are crucial limits on the exercise of judicial power, which originate from the institutional conditions that have enabled the ECJ to achieve the constitutionalization of Community law. These limits have been revealed in Viking and Laval cases that have destabilized the balance between economic rights of freedom and fundamental rights in the European Union. To indicate these limits, this paper starts from analyzing issues posed by the ITL: the effect of constitutionalization in economic integration, and the scope of ECJ’s power as a trustee. In this first section, although the ECJ has a considerable zone of discretion, it is argued that there are strictures on its use. The next section is dedicated to examine ECJ’s approach to establish rights in the social field at the Community level. This part demonstrates that the ECJ consistently controls itself for complying with the conditions on the use of its expansive reading of the Treaty. In the final section, it is discussed that the outcomes of Viking and Laval resulted from these conditions and the emerged trade-off among these conditions indicates the limit of the integration model provided by the ITL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".