Abstract
This chapter tests the hypothesis established in Chapter 6 by exploring the likelihood of the Court of Justice's countervailing powers employing countermeasures where the Court renders a ‘scenario 1' rulings. These are rulings that adhere to the legal doctrine and accepted techniques and are substantively acceptable to all the Court's countervailing powers. This chapter advances the argument that there are both normative and pragmatic reasons why the Court of Justice should, where possible, deliver 'scenario 1' rulings. The chapter considers political science accounts of the relationship between the Court of Justice and Member State governments; specifically, the two most dominant and opposing theories, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. Thereafter, there is a discussion of the extent to which 'scenario 1' rulings are possible and the extent to which the Court is free to choose between outcomes where more than one 'scenario 1' ruling is available.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
