June 10, 2025Open Access

Rethinking Courts in Federal Systems: A Comparative Approach

Key Points

Understanding judicial reasoning is critical for effective comparisons in federal systems, and this study addresses that need.
The study proposes a conceptual framework for analyzing constitutional disputes across various federal systems.
The approach emphasizes the importance of balancing general and specific theories in comparative constitutional law.
Highlights the complexities and nuances in judicial reasoning that shape federal legal systems.

Abstract

In the evolving field of comparative constitutional law, one persistent challenge has been the development of theories that are both broadly explanatory and finely attuned to the unique features of individual systems. This tension—between generality and specificity—is especially pronounced in the study of federal systems and the role of courts within them. In a paper (https: //papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm? abstractᵢd=5338955) prepared for the Federal Scholar in Residence Program (https: //www. eurac. edu/en/institutes-centers/institute-for-comparative-federalism/pages/federal-scholar-in-residence-program) at the Institute for Comparative Federalism, I seek to offer a fresh and methodologically rigorous approach to this issue, by proposing a conceptual framework to help us understand and meaningfully compare judicial reasoning and constitutional disputes in federations.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper