From the Eurozone crisis to the Coronavirus:A decade of contentious socio-economic policy responses before European Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting with the Great financial crisis of 2008, the European Union has experienced a succession of crises, all of which have engendered politically contentious policy responses. The conditions of these international and transnational crises have revealed critical divisions not only between different political groups intra-state but, more critically, divisions between the member states themselves. Given the EU’s relatively judicialized governance framework, actors seeking legal remedies, whether to prevent crisis policy or seek damages, have taken the route of litigation, thus drawing European courts into the politically contentious issues of these crises. This in itself has raised controversy because of what some believe to be the political prerogative of the executive branch to act quickly in a crisis being put in tension with the slower moving judicial procedure. This raises the question of what role(s) Courts take on during crises. Does the politically contentious nature of these crises shape in unexpected ways the ‘typical’ roles that Courts have, for example, the enforcement role or the administrative review role? Or are new roles engendered because of the politically contentious context in which courts are expected to adjudicate? I argue that we can understand this role in terms of looking at the strategies of the plaintiffs and the context in which the courts have been activated. I look at the socio-economic crisis policies, spanning from the Eurozone crisis to the current coronavirus crisis, and how courts have reacted. I present a sociological picture of different roles that European Courts take when drawn on to deal with socio-economic crisis issues: the People’s Court; the Expert’s Court; the Absent Court. Keywords: EU; judicialization; Eurozone crisis; coronavirus
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".