No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Plurality and Diversity of Integration Models: The Italian Unification of 1865 and the European Union Ongoing Integration Process
Abstract
Analysed in this chapter are the characteristics of two main integration processes that Italy has experienced. Firstly, the country’s unification as a nation more than 150 years ago. Secondly, and more recently, together with other EU Member States, the constitution of a Legal Order. In both cases, the integration process is not meant to be homogeneous as far as various entities and activities are concerned, nor is it based mainly on general and abstract rules. Rather, it relies on administrative acts and different forms of administrative cooperation.
With citizens being considered customers, public administration scholars have become interested in explaining satisfaction with public services and studying the consequences of high or low satisfaction. This chapter reviews current scholarship on satisfaction with public services and in particular the mechanisms and theories to explain such satisfaction. Differences between objective performance and subjective evaluations are discussed, as well as the impact of a halo effect in attitude formation and of direct user experience with service. Special attention goes to the expectancy disconfirmation model of satisfaction. The chapter does not only look at satisfaction as an attitude but also at voice and exit behaviours from which satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be inferred. It ends by critically assessing the value of behaviours as signals of public dissatisfaction with public services.
This article examines how the substantive changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty with regard to the scope and nature of Commu-nity competence and to decision-making rules in the fi eld of the Com-mon Commercial Policy fulfi l the need for balancing internal and exter-nal action and stand up to the requirements of international economic regulation. It is argued that the Lisbon Treaty, building upon the prem-ises of the current regime, constitutes a benchmark in the evolution of the Common Commercial Policy. The expansion of the scope of the Common Commercial Policy to trade in services, commercial aspects of intellectual property and, most importantly, foreign direct invest-ment indicates that a common policy in the fi elds of goods, services, establishment and capital with regard to third countries is necessary in order to serve the goals of internal integration and to increase the competitiveness of Europe in the world. Furthermore, by "merging" the different aspects of the Common Commercial Policy and simplifying the provisions concerning the exercise of EU competence, the Lisbon Treaty ensures its effective application. However, the "merger" of the different aspects of the Common Commercial Policy does not affect the balance of powers that exists in the internal market with regard to the same areas of law. The only derogations from parallelism between internal and external powers concern the exclusive nature of EU competence and the role of the European Parliament. However, these are both nec-essary for preserving the effectiveness of Union policy and introducing legitimacy in the most important fi eld of EU external relations.
Europe's monetary union is part of a broader process of integration that started in the aftermath of World War II. In this “political guide for economists,” we look at the creation of the euro within the bigger picture of European integration. How and why were European institutions established? What is European integration really about? We address these questions from a political-economy perspective, building on ideas and results from the economic literature on the formation of states and political unions. Specifically, we look at the motivations, assumptions, and limitations of the European strategy initiated by Jean Monnet and his collaborators of partially integrating policy functions in a few areas with the expectation that more integration will follow in other areas in a sort of chain reaction toward an “ever-closer union.” The euro with its current problems is a child of that strategy and its limits.
The EU has passed its half-century. This chapter considers two related issues that are central to the development of the EU. The first half of the chapter addresses the rich literature that explores the rationale for EU integration. There are contending theories and the literature is, unsurprisingly,still evolving. The objective within this part of the discussion is to render accessible to lawyers the scholarship by those schooled in international relations and political science that has explored the dynamic of EU integration. It is also designed to reveal the assumptions and implications of particular integration theories for EU democracy. The focus in the second half of the chapter shifts to democracy itself, and analysis of the burgeoning literature concerned with the nature of EU democracy, the extent to which the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, and the ways in which it can be alleviated. There is a significant measure of agreement as to the features that are or might be problematic within the EU from a democratic perspective. It will however be seen that the divergence between scholars turns on differences as to the factors that are regarded as important in assessing EU democracy, which then leads to differences of view as to particular aspects of the democratic deficit critique. The discussion draws on insights from integration theory where relevant to the inquiry.
This paper examines the impact of ethnic divisions on conflict. The analysis relies on a theoretical model of conflict (Esteban and Ray, 2010) in which equilibrium conflict is shown to be accurately described by a linear function of just three distributional indices of ethnic diversity: the Gini coefficient, the Hirschman-Herfindahl fractionalization index, and a measure of polarization. Based on a dataset constructed by James Fearon and data from Ethnologue on ethno-linguistic groups and the "linguistic distances" between them, we compute the three distribution indices. Our results show that ethnic polarization is a highly significant correlate of conflict. Fractionalization is also significant in some of the statistical exercises, but the Gini coefficient never is. In particular, inter-group distances computed from language and embodied in polarization measures turn out to be extremely important correlates of ethnic conflict.
In a world of trade restrictions, large countries enjoy economic benefits, because political boundaries determine the size of the market. Under free trade and global markets even relatively small cultural, linguistic or ethnic groups can benefit from forming small, homogeneous political jurisdictions. This paper provides a formal model of the relationship between openness and the equilibrium number and size of countries, and successfully tests two implications of the model. Firstly, the economic benefits of country size are mediated by the degree of openness to trade. Secondly, the history of nation-state creations and secessions is influenced by the trade regime.
This paper analyzes the relationship between ethnic fractionalization,
polarization, and conflict. In recent years many authors have found empirical evidence that ethnic fractionalization has a negative effect on growth. One mechanism that can explain this nexus is the effect of ethnic heterogeneity on rent-seeking activities and the increase
in potential conflict, which is negative for investment. However the empirical evidence supporting the effect of ethnic fractionalization on the incidence of civil conflicts is very weak.
Although ethnic fractionalization may be important for growth, we argue that the channel is not through an increase in potential ethnic conflict. We discuss the appropriateness of indices of polarization
to capture conflictive dimensions. We develop a new measure of ethnic heterogeneity that satisfies the basic properties associated with the concept of polarization.
The empirical section shows that this index of ethnic polarization is a significant variable in the explanation of the incidence of civil wars. This result is robust to the presence of other indicators of ethnic heterogeneity, other sources of data for the construction of the index,
and other data structures.
This contribution covers the development of European administrative law, in particular the changes which the Treaty of Lisbon has brought about. Next to a growing amount of secondary law, EU administrative law has been mainly shaped by the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, it still lacks a coherent structure. The author, thus, pleads for the codification of the major rules on administrative procedures in particular in the field of indirect implementation of European law - on a yet to be established legal basis in the Treaties which - in his view - the Lisbon Treaty still does not provide for.
Administrative cooperation between Member States as implementation of European Union (EU) law has so far attracted little attention. This article would like to demonstrate that it is nevertheless a key element of the functioning of many EU legislations and policies. Especially, its relevance is explicit for all the internal market-related matters. This article addresses three main points. First, EU law provisions related to administrative cooperation are analysed. Second, the instruments of cooperation displayed by EU law are categorized arguing that their use creates a network pattern of cooperation. Finally, side effects of administrative cooperation are addressed.
The right to be heard is the cornerstone of procedural guarantees for citizens in the administrative procedure. After forty years of case-by-case development by the EU courts, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and with it, Article 41(2)(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (hereinafter 'the Charter'), has introduced into the EU legal system a single binding abstract statement of the right to be heard to be the benchmark for the interpretation and application of the right. This article argues that Article 41(2)(1), more than adding to coherency, runs the risk of adding to the confusion. It is shown that the translation of the Article to the various official languages created in effect two statements of the law with significant differences in the scope of application of the right. This article identifies the formulation that was originally envisaged by the drafters of the Charter but shows that in the years that have passed between its drafting and its entry into force the EU courts have developed further the right to be heard and the law as it stands today cannot be easily settled with the language of Article 41(2)(1).This article concludes by offering an interpretive solution to the problem.
The desirability having a general law on administrative procedure has been debated in the past and has now come back on the agenda, in part at least because of support from the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament. If such a law, or something equivalent thereto, is developed there will be a range of issues to address concerning its scope and content. This article considers the rationale for such an instrument, and the type of subject matter that might be included. The principal focus is however on the logically prior issue as to the competence to enact such an instrument. This was questioned in the pre-Lisbon world, and question marks remain post-Lisbon. It will be seen moreover that resolution of this question raises interesting and important issues concerning the relationship between legislative and judicial competence within the EU.
European law scholars acknowledge that cooperation amongst public administrations in Europe has 'become the backbone of the EU's unique system of government and governance'. All in all, it has been pointed out that the principle of (administrative) cooperation is crucial for the correct application of European Union (EU) law. However, cooperation is also the very principle around that revolve several initiatives, launched to provide an alternative to the courts in protecting individuals against alleged misapplications of European law by national authorities. Hence, cooperation networks of national authorities (and European institutions) have been set up to provide a response to the needs of the European citizen who has to deal with a new 'European administration' and also to make administrative practices better and more consistent throughout Europe.
This article is divided into two main sections. The first section deals with the principle of administrative cooperation in the application of EU law and with the legal problems (especially in terms of judicial review) that stem from 'cross-border' composite decision-making procedures. The second section focuses on the cooperation networks that during the last decade have been developed to resolve problems arising when EU rights are not respected by national public authorities: namely the SOLVIT network, the Public Procurement Network and the Network of Ombudsmen. Finally, a brief account is given of the Single Market Assistance Services initiative.
The first half of the chapter addresses the rich literature concerning the rationale for EU integration. The objective is to render accessible to lawyers, scholarship from international relations and political science that has explored the dynamic of EU integration. It is also designed to reveal the implications of particular theories for EU democracy. The focus in the second half of the chapter shifts to democracy itself, and analysis of the burgeoning literature concerned with the nature of EU democracy, the extent to which the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, and the ways in which it can be alleviated. There is a significant measure of agreement as to the problematic features within the EU from a democratic perspective. The scholarly divergence turns on differences as to the importance of different factors in assessing EU democracy, which leads to differences of view on aspects of the democratic deficit critique. The discussion will draw on insights from integration theory where relevant to the inquiry.
The Substantive Law of the EU provides a critical and thorough analysis of the key principles of the substantive law of the EU, focusing on the four freedoms (goods, persons, services, and capital). An introductory chapter provides valuable context on the nature of the internal market, its evolution, and the theories behind its key principles. Each of the freedoms is then dealt with in turn. The book concludes with a discussion of harmonization, the regulation of the internal market, and its future.
European research into probably the best-known model of leadership in the public sector—the transformational–transactional leadership model—emerges from this chapter as potentially more important for what it says about a leader’s focus on followers’ needs as what it says about charismatic and empowering leadership. The remaining perspectives, including systems leadership, are at an early stage in research terms, but do serve to highlight that models of leadership need to keep up with evolutions in the public sector, including the extensive use of partnerships and networks. This chapter also includes some materials on public governance developments in Scotland to highlight the role of public sector leaders in relation to public governance, including their role in redesigning public governance institutions.
The research carried out by the Max Planck Institute does not only enrich our empirical knowledge about the new trends regarding the exercise of authority. It also raises some challenging theoretical questions. One such question, which has been raised by several observers in the last years and lies at the heart of the ambitious project advanced by the introductory paper, is whether the traditional dichotomy between public law within and outside states still makes sense. Another question is whether, in the brave new world in which we live, there are at least some common principles of procedure shared by most (if not all) legal orders.
Is the procedural autonomy of EU Member State a myth or a reality? What should this concept be taken to mean? Starting from the analysis of requirements and principles regulating, generally speaking, the relationships between Member States' and EU law, this book provides a definition of procedural autonomy able to account for the concept's inherent limits. Out of an analysis of the more relevant EU jurisprudence, the author identifies the rationale underlying the interventions of the ECJ on issues of procedural autonomy and the common logic that emerges from it; and reveals how, in an unchanged context of 'procedural autonomy' of the Member States, national procedural law becomes more and more 'functionalized' to the requirements of effectiveness of substantive EU law. As such, we should speak of a 'functionalized procedural competence' rather than of procedural autonomy. But this is by no means a case of "Paradise Lost." The book includes a foreword by Prof. Jürgen Schwarze, one of the founding fathers of European Administrative Law. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010. All rights are reserved.
The enhanced cooperation procedure has recently acquired a new popularity with EU policy-makers. Yet, the use of enhanced cooperation has also come under scrutiny, with the ECJ being asked to rule for the first time on the matter in the legal challenges brought by Spain and Italy against the decision of the Council to authorize enhanced cooperation for the creation of a unitary patent protection regime. This article examines the Treaty rides on enhanced cooperation and seeks to provide a coherent reconstruction of the function of this procedure in the constitutional system of the EU. As the article argues, an historical and systematic interpretation of positive law suggests that enhanced cooperation is finalized toward multi-speed integration in the EU. As a result, Member States are allowed to resort to this instrument only when they disagree whether to act jointly at the EU level but not when they disagree how to do so. In light of this framework, the article critically examines Spain & Italy v. Council of the EU, dealing with the legality of enhanced cooperation in the creation of a unitary patent and concludes, contrary to the opinion of the AG and the judgment of the ECJ, that Spain and Italy were legally right in challenging the Council decision: despite their unreasonable position from a policy-making perspective, the Council had misused its powers in authorizing an enhanced cooperation in the case.
As the crisis (and the Union's response to it) further develops, one thing appears clear: the European Union post-crisis will be a very different animal from the pre-crisis EU. This article offers an alternative model for the EU's constitutional future. Its objective is to invert the Union's current path-dependency: changes to the way in which the Union works should serve to question, rather than entrench, its future objectives and trajectory. The paper argues that the post-crisis EU requires a quite different normative, institutional and juridical framework. Such a framework must focus on reproducing the social and political cleavages that underlie authority on the national level and that allow divisive political choices to be legitimised. This reform project implies reshaping the prerogatives of the European institutions. Rather than seeking to prevent or bracket political conflict, the division of institutional competences and tasks should be rethought in order to allow the EU institutions to internalise within their decision-making process the conflicts reproduced by social and political cleavages. Finally, a reformed legal order must play an active role as a facilitator and container of conflict over the ends of the integration project.
Can the process of European unification lead to a form of democracy that is at once supranational and situated above the organisational level of a state? The supranational federation should be constructed in such a way that the heterarchical relationship between the Member States and the federation remains intact. The author finds the basis for such an order in the idea of the EU constituted by a ‘doubled’ sovereign—the European citizens and the European peoples (the States). In order to sustain such an order, reforms of the existing European treaties are needed. It is necessary to eliminate the legitimation deficits of the EU in a future Euro-Union—that is, a more closely integrated core Europe. The European Parliament would have to gain the right to take legislative initiatives, and the so-called ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, which requires the approval of both chambers, would have to be extended to all policy fields.
European legitimacy discourse typically employs two principal concepts: input (process) legitimacy and output (result) legitimacy. But a third concept, political messianism, is central to the legitimation of Europe, though less commonly explored. In the current European circumstance, however, each of these three concepts is inoperable. Any solution to the crisis of Europe will have to draw upon the deep legitimacy resources of the national communities, the member states.
The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales constitutes an attempt to avoid transaction costs caused by legal diversity within the European Union. However, the character and scope of CESL rules, together with their complex interaction with European conflict-of-laws rules and the substantive acquis, leads to a scenario of legal uncertainty. This means that the intended objective will not be achieved and, in certain cases, that consumer protection is sacrificed in favour of traders' interests. In order to illustrate this critical conclusion, this article analyses the character and scope of CESL rules. Secondly, the application of CESL rules is considered in cases of an express or implied choice of law and in the absence of such a choice. Finally, further reflections will focus on the application of overriding mandatory rules and on the seminal question of the applicable law to interpret contracts.
Purpose
– This article aims to analyse the development of the concept of social dialogue in the UK as it has been encouraged by the European Union vision of social democracy. The starting points for the discussion are articles 27 and 28 of the Character of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on information and consultation and collective bargaining and collective agreements, respectively.
Design/methodology/approach
– The European context for developments is followed by a historical sketch of the topics included in the discussion. Analysis and evaluation is then presented of the evolving concept of social partnership and the traditional forms of “social dialogue” in the UK – collective bargaining and collective agreements; trade union recognition for collective bargaining; disclosure of information for collective bargaining purpose. Some former collective bargaining systems are also included in the analysis.
Findings
– The focus of the discussion is the influence of European law on information and consultation in three discreet areas – the transfer of undertakings; collective redundancies and health and safety at work. The general conclusion is that the discreet notions of social dialogue which emanate from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union spell good laws, good governance and effective democracy.
Originality/value
– The article analyses the development of the concept of social dialogue.
There is currently much interest in the question whether a global administrative law is coming into being and, if so, whether this is desirable or otherwise. This paper addresses the question of principles for a global administrative law. It considers four potential sources and their suitability as a foundation for a global administrative law system: first, the largely procedural principles that have emerged in national administrative law systems, notably the principle of legality and due process principles (Section 3); second, the set of rule of law values, promoted by proponents of free trade and economic liberalism (Section 4); third, the good governance values, and more particularly transparency, participation and accountability, promoted by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Section 5); and finally, human rights values (Section 6). The paper ends on a sceptical note, concluding that a universal set of administrative law principles is difficult to identify and not especially desirable. First, administrative law is primarily a Western construct, protective of Western interests. It may impact unfavourably on developing economies. Secondly, the evolution of global administrative law in adjudicative forums is leading to an undesirable 'juridification of the political process'. The paper concludes that diversity and pluralism are preferable.
This article addresses problems of accountability in the system of multilevel governance, organised around networks, as it exists in the EU. An ‘accountability deficit’ arises when gaps are left by the accountability machinery of the several levels of government, supranational and national. This article suggests a new evaluative framework based on the concept of ‘accountability network’, questioning the hierarchical and pyramidal assumptions that presently underpin accountability theory in the EU context. Using case studies of the Community courts and European Ombudsman, the article suggests that ‘accountability networks’ may be emerging, composed of agencies specialising in a specific mode of accountability, which come together or coalesce in a relationship of support, fortified by shared professional expertise and ethos. At present fragmentary and imperfect, these might ultimately be capable of providing effective machinery for accountability in network governance systems.
Questions of political identity and citizenship, raised by thecreation of the `new Europe', pose new questions that politicaltheorists need to consider. Reflection upon the circumstances ofthe new Europe could help them in their task of delineatingconceptual structures and investigating the character ofpolitical argument.Does it make sense to use concepts as `citizenship' and`identity' beyond the borders of the nation-state? What does itmean when we speak about `European Citizenship' and `EuropeanIdentity'?It is argued that the pluralism that has led theorists tooffer a conception of citizenship based upon principles of right,rather that the common good, applies even more strongly at thelevel of the European political order. Developing a contractariantheory of federation, an account of the basis of a Europeancitizenship will be offered in which federalism emerges out of anoverlapping consensus of European citizens on the terms of theirpolitical association.`European Citizenship' and `European Identity' are discussedin the context of the so-called `European Union', and not in thewider context of Europe `as a whole', or for that matter on aneven broader `cosmopolitan' scale. However, the gist of the articleis that arguments for concepts of `citizenship' and `identity'that go beyond borders of nation-states and that are applied tothe `European Union', could have implications for an even widerapplication.Finally, and in conclusion, the (empirical) context will beelaborated in which the normative concept of shared liberalcitizenship identity should be realized on a pan-national,European level.
The process of European integration has momentous implications for the future of Europe. The Single European Act and the Maastricht
treaty signaled the desire of Europe’s political leaders to accelerate the pace of integration. Their initiatives represented
an ambitious attempt to restructure Europe’s institutions and transform its economy.
This chapter shows how the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States, the case law of the Court of Justice and the
General Court of the European Union, some decisions of national courts (using the Spanish example) and the control exercised
by certain international bodies, such as the World Trade Organization Appellate Body, are gradually deploying an intense control
on procedural defects and bad motivation, thus satisfying the control of good administration and contributing, albeit indirectly,
to its consolidation. In this sense, although indirect and limited, judicial review of administrative action is an instrument
contributing to the quality of the administration by protecting the right to good administration. The work emphasizes that
the emergence of various procedural legal principles and obligations related to the emergence of a right to good administration
seems to be a feature of the judicial globalization process.
"The Moment of Complexity is a profoundly original work. In remarkable and insightful ways, Mark Taylor traces an entirely new way to view the evolution of our culture, detailing how information theory and the scientific concept of complexity can be used to understand recent developments in the arts and humanities. This book will ultimately be seen as a classic."-John L. Casti, Santa Fe Institute, author of Gödel: A Life of Logic, the Mind, and Mathematics The science of complexity accounts for that inscrutable mix of chaos and order that governs our natural world. Complexity explains how networks emerge and function, how species organize into ecosystems, how stars form into galaxies, and how just a few sequences of DNA can account for so many different life forms. Recently, the idea of complexity has taken the worlds of business and politics by storm. The concept is used to account for phenomena as varied as the behavior of the stock market, the response of voting populations, and the effects of risk management. Even Disney has used complexity theory to manage crowd control at its theme parks. Given the startling development of new information technologies, we now live in a moment of unprecedented complexity, an era in which change occurs faster than our ability to comprehend it. With The Moment of Complexity, Mark C. Taylor offers a timely map for this unfamiliar terrain opening in our midst, unfolding an original philosophy through a remarkable synthesis of science and culture. According to Taylor, complexity is not just a breakthrough scientific concept, but the defining quality of the post-Cold War era. The flux of digital currents swirling around us, he argues, has created a new network culture with its own distinctive logic and dynamic. Drawing on resources from information theory and evolutionary biology, Taylor explains the operation of complex adaptive systems in social and cultural processes and captures a whole new zeitgeist in the making. To appreciate the significance of our emerging network culture, he claims, we need not only to understand contemporary scientific and technological transformations, but also to explore the subtle influences of art, architecture, philosophy, religion, and higher education. The Moment of Complexity, then, is a remarkable work of cultural analysis on a scale rarely seen today. To follow its trajectory is to learn how we arrived at this critical moment in our culture, and to know where we might head in the twenty-first century.
Drawing extensively on the entire body of applicable case law, this in-depth study analyses what the free movement of persons provisions of the EC Treaty have come to mean in today’s Europe. The author posits the emergence of a new constitutional dimension whereby the Member States bear considerable duties towards Union citizens qua citizens rather than just qua economic actors―a duty not to interfere with individual rights, a duty to respect individual rights, and a duty to protect individual rights—duties to be understood in the context of Union citizenship. Among the relevant issues scrutinised in the course of the analysis are the following:
• the refinement of the concept of discrimination;
• the notion of ‘non-discriminatory barrier’ and remuneration in relation to the free movement of services;
• non-discriminatory barriers to the freedom of establishment and the movement of workers;
• the inadequacy of the market access test;
• the notion of Union citizenship and its impact on the economic free movement provisions;
• the right to pursue an economic activity free of disproportionate market regulation.
The book contains a detailed and extensive analysis of the relevant case law. As a deeply-informed assessment of the conceptual underpinnings and normative potentialities of these fundamental Community rights, Free Movement of Persons in the European Union will be of inestimable value to academics, as well as to postgraduate students and others concerned with the ongoing process of European integration.
The aim of this paper is to describe, analyze and compare the recent legal developments regarding territorial cooperation that can be observed on the international and supranational level in Europe: the EC Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation adopted in 2006, on the one hand, and the planned Third Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co–operation between Territorial Communities and Authorities concerning Euroregional Co–operation Groupings of the Council of Europe, on the other hand. Which future perspectives for territorial cooperation in Europe do these two new tools open and what could be the added value of having two (rather similar) instruments? These are just two of the questions standing behind this paper, entitled “Future Perspectives for Territorial Cooperation in Europe”, which–towards its end–will eventually come back to one of the most crucial determinants for the future development of territorial cooperation in Europe, i.e. the attitude of the national states towards CBC and their respective constitutional provisions.
We argue that European integration is provoked and sustained by the development of causal connections between three factors: transnational exchange, supranational organization, and EC rule-making. We explain the transition in any given policy sector, from national to intergovernmental to supranational governance, in two ways. First, cross-border transactions and communications generate a social demand for EC rules and regulation, which supranational organizations work to supply. We thus expect that the Community competencies will be unevenly constructed, both across policy sectors and over time, as a function of the intensity of these demands. Second, once the EC rules are in place, a process of institutionalization ensues, and this process provokes further integration. Although we recognize the importance of intergovernmental bargaining in EC politics, our theory is not compatible with existing intergovernmental theorizing.
Gli accordi fra soggetti pubblici nel diritto europeo
- N Bassi
Storia dell’amministrazione pubblica in Italia
- P Calandra
La disciplina del gruppo europeo di cooperazione territoriale (GECT) tra diritto dell’Unione europea, autonomia statutaria e diritto internazionale privato: un tentativo di sintesi
- S Carrea
Lo Spazio amministrativo europeo
- M P Chiti
- MP Chiti
The proposed common European sales law - the lawyers’ view
- G Alpa
- G Conte
- U Perfetti
Cittadinanza dell’Unione e libera circolazione delle persone
- M Condinanzi
- A Lang
- B Nascimbene
Ingovernabili da Torino. I tormentati esordi dell’Unità d’Italia
- Costa Cardol
- M Costa Cardol
Les relations entre administrations pour l’exécution du droit de l’Union
- M A Glaser
- MA Glaser