Element contents
Series: Elements in Philosophy of Law
Subsidiarity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2025
Summary
'Subsidiarity' is vague and contested, yet popular in scholarship about international law due to its role in the European Union (EU). Which conceptions of subsidiarity are more justifiable, and how might they contribute to international law? A principle of subsidiarity concerns how to establish, allocate, or use authority within a social or legal order, stating a rebuttable presumption for the local. Various historical patterns, practices, principles, and justifications offer different recommendations. Seven normative theories vary in how immunity protecting or person promoting they are. The latter appear more justifiable and withstand criticism often raised against subsidiarity. Some conceptions of person promoting subsidiarity serve as a structuring principle for international law and fullfills several criteria of a general principle of law. It can harmonize domestic and international law but is not sufficient to reduce fragmentation among sectors with different objectives.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Philosophy of LawOnline ISBN: 9781108993685Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 20 February 2025
References
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Acharya, A. & Stubbs, R. (eds.) (2008). Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adler, M. (1990). The Exhaustion of the Local Remedies Rule after the ICJ Decision in ELSI. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 39, 641–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, P. (2002). Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law. European Journal of International Law, 13, 815–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. (2008a). Agents or Trustees? European Journal of International Relations, 14, 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. (2008b). Delegating to International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 37–76.Google Scholar
Alter, K., Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Helfer, L. (2019). Theorizing the Judicialization of International Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 63, 449–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althusius, J. (1603 (1995)). Politica Methodice Digesta, transl. Carney, F.S. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. (2016). ‘Beware: Boundary Crossings’ – A Critical Appraisal of Public Law Approaches to International Investment Law. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 17, 171–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An-Na’im, A. (1990). Human Rights in the Muslim World. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 3, 13–52.Google Scholar
Andenas, M. (2015). Reassertion and Transformation. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 46, 685–734.Google Scholar
Andenas, M. & Bjorge, E. (eds.) (2015). A Farewell to Fragmentation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andenas, M. & Chiussi, L. (2019). Cohesion, Convergence and Coherence of International Law. In Andenas, M., Fitzmaurice, M., Tanzi, A., & Wouters, J. (eds.), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andenas, M., Fitzmaurice, M., Tanzi, A., & Wouters, J. (eds.) (2019). General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anghie, A. (2000). What Is TWAIL: Comment. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 94, 39–40.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1266(2002)). De Regno, Ad Regem Cypri. In Dyson, R. (ed.) Aquinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5–51.Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2001). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2013). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine. In Follesdal, A., Peters, B., & Ulfstein, G. (eds.) The European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–105.Google Scholar
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, & Paraguay. (2019). Declaration to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/bitstream/123456789/8628/1/declaracion-sobre-sistema-interamericano.pdf.Google Scholar
Aristotle (1988). Politics. (Jowett, B. transl.) In Barnes, J. (ed.) The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2, 1986–2129.Google Scholar
Aroney, N. (2007). Subsidiarity, Federalism and the Best Constitution. Law and Philosophy, 26, 161–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bado, K. (2019). Good Governance as a Precondition for Subsidiarity. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 57, 242–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakunin, M. A. (1867(1972)). Federalism. In Avrich, P. & Dolgoff, S. (eds.) Bakunin on Anarchy. New York: Vintage Books. www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/reasons-of-state.html.Google Scholar
Bakunin, M. A. (1971). Bakunin on Anarchy, Avrich, P. & Dolgoff, S. (eds.) New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Ballara, A. (1998). Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c. 1769 to c. 1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, N. (2005). The Limited Modesty of Subsidiarity. European Law Journal, 11, 308–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, N. (2018). Subsidiarity. In The Principles of Constitutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barentsen, B. (2023). The Right to Collective Action. In Gerards, J. (ed.) Fundamental Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barroche, J. (2007). Subsidiarity and Jacques Delors. Politique Europeénne, 23, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B. (1989). Theories of Justice, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, W. J. (1952). Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, R., Bernard, L., Phan, H. D., Hsien-Li, T., & Yusran, R. (2016). Promoting Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedjaoui, M. (1985). Poverty of the International Order. In Falk, R., Kratochvil, F., & Mendelovitz, S. (eds.) International Law. Boulder: Westview, 152–154.Google Scholar
Bednar, J. (2008). The Robust Federation - Principles of Design, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednar, J., Eskridge, W. N. Jr., & Ferejohn, J. (2001). A Political Theory of Federalism. In Ferejohn, J., Rakove, J. N., & Riley, J. (eds.) Constitutional Culture and Democratic Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, XVI (2009). Caritas in Veritate. www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (1999). Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards. International Law and Politics, 31, 843–854.Google Scholar
Berdan, F. (2017). Structure of the Triple Alliance Empire. In Nichols, D. & Rodriguez-Alegria, E. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 439–450.Google Scholar
Bergsmo, M. & Webb, P. (2010). International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, Complementarity and Jurisdiction. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedias of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2009). The Authority of International Law. Sidney Law Review, 31, 343–380.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2011). Sovereignty. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedias of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2016). Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 69–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieber, R., Jacque, J.-P., & Weiler, J. H. H. (eds.) (1985). An Ever Closer Union, Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
Biondi, A. (2012). Subsidiarity in the Courtroom. In Biondi, A., Eeckhout, P., & Ripley, S. (eds.) EU Law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. & Gilman, N. (2024). Children of a Modest Star, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blecher, J. (2020). Scholars, Spice Traders, and Sultans. Islamic Law and Society, 27, 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blichner, L. & Sangolt, L. (1994). The Concept of Subsidiarity and the Debate on European Cooperation. Governance, 7, 284–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaards, M. (2023). Consociationalism and the State. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 1–19.Google Scholar
Bonner, M. (2005). Poverty and Economics in the Qur’an. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 35, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borries, R. V. & Hauschild, M. (1999). Implementing the Subsidiarity Principle. Columbia Journal of European Law, 5, 369–388.Google Scholar
Brauch, J. A. (2005). The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11, 113–150.Google Scholar
Brauch, M. D. (2017). Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Investment Law. IISD Best Practices Series. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Braybrooke, D. (1983). Can Democracy Be Combined with Federalism or with Liberalism? In Pennock, J. R. & Chapman, J. W. (eds.) Liberal Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 109–118.Google Scholar
Brems, E. (2019). Positive Subsidiarity and Its Implications for the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 37, 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, P. (2014). Subsidiarity in the Tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine. In Zimmermann, A. & Evans, M. (eds.) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Dordrecht: Springer, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broude, T. (2016). Selective Subsidiarity and Dialectic Deference in the World Trade Organization. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 53–74.Google Scholar
Broude, T. & Shany, Y. (eds.) (2008). The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law, London: Hart.Google Scholar
Brouillet, E. (2011). Canadian Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity. The Supreme Court Law Review, 54, 601–632.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. (2003). The Making and Unmaking of Boundaries. In Buchanan, A. & Moore, M. (eds.) States, Nations and Borders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, M. (2016). Sovereignty, Liberalism and the Intelligibility of Attraction to Subsidiarity. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, M. (2017). Theorizing Subsidiarity. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15, 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, M. (2021). Subsidiarity as the Preference for Proximity. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 66, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carozza, P. (2003). Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law. American Journal of International Law, 97, 38–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carozza, P. (2016). The Problematic Applicability of Subsidiarity to International Law and Institutions. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, W. M. (2008). Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 30, 319–333.Google Scholar
Cash, M. (2002). Distancing Kantian Ethics and Politics from Kant’s Views on Women. Minerva, 6, 103–150.Google Scholar
Castellarin, E. (2019). General Principles of EU Law and General International Law. In Andenas, M., Fitzmaurice, M., Tanzi, A., & Wouters, J. (eds.) General Principles and the Coherence of International Law. Leiden: Brill, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J. (1998). A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights. In Bauer, J. R. & Bell, D. A. (eds.) The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 212–240.Google Scholar
Chan, J. (2003). Giving Priority to the Worst Off. In Bell, D. & Chaibong, H. (eds.) Confucianism for the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J. (2012). Confucianism. In Palmer, M. & Burgess, S. (eds.) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, J. (2014). Subsidiarity and Social Pluralism. In Zimmermann, A. & Evans, M. (eds.) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Dordrecht: Springer, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, H. (1999). Feminist Methods in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 93, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, H. & Chinkin, C. (2022). The Boundaries of International Law, Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, H., Chinkin, C., & Wright, S. (1991). Feminist Approaches to International Law. American Journal of International Law, 85, 613–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherubini, F. (2015). The Relationship between the CJEU and the ECtHR in View of the Accession. German Law Journal, 16, 1375–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics, 99, 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colden, C. (1918–1937). Letters and Papers, New York: New York Historical Society Collections.Google Scholar
Cooper, I. (2006). The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornell, D. (2012). A Call for a Nuanced Constitutional Jurisprudence. In Cornell, D. & Muvangua, N. (eds.) Ubuntu and the Law. New York: Fordham University Press, 324–332.Google Scholar
Couronne, V. & Maurel, R. (2019). Effective Domestic Remedy. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Sovereignty as a Legal Value. In Crawford, J. & Koskenniemi, M. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. (2014). Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, General Course on Public International Law. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crema, L. (2010). Disappearance and New Sightings of Restrictive Interpretation(s). The European Journal of International Law, 21, 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criddle, E. J. & Fox-Decent, E. (2016). Fiduciaries of Humanity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Aspremont, J. (2022). International Legal Positivism. In Dunoff, J. L. & Pollack, M. A. (eds.) International Legal Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 63–81.Google Scholar
Da Silva, M. (2023). Subsidiarity and the Allocation of Governmental Powers. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 36, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. A. & Tufte, E. (1973). Size and Democracy, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dardanelli, P., Kincaid, J., Fenna, A., et al. (2018). Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 49, 194–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (2008). One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Industrial Law Journal, 37, 126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, L. J. (2014). A Kantian Defense of the Right to Health Care. In Follesdal, A. & Maliks, R. (eds.) Kantian Theory and Human Rights. New York: Routledge, 70–88.Google Scholar
Davies, L. J. (2020). Kant on Welfare: Five Unsuccessful Defences. Kantian Review, 25, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de-Shalit, A. (2018). Cities and Immigration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Búrca, G. (1999). Reappraising Subsidiarity’s Significance after Amsterdam. Jean Monnet Working Paper 7/99, New York University Law School. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/99/990701.html.Google Scholar
De Schutter, H. (2019). Territoriality and Personality. In Lever, A. & Poama, A. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ethics and Public Policy. New York: Routledge, 129–142.Google Scholar
de Visser, J. (2010). Institutional Subsidiarity in the South African Constitution. Stellenbosch Law Review, 21, 90–115.Google Scholar
de Vries, S. (2013a). Balancing Fundamental Rights with Economic Freedoms according to the ECJ. Utrecht Law Review, 9, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, S. (2013b). The Protection of Fundamental Rights within Europe’s Internal Market. In de Vries, S., Bernitz, U., & Weatherill, S. (eds.) The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU after Lisbon. Oxford: Hart, 59–94.Google Scholar
De Witte, B. & Šejla, I. (2015). Opinion 2/13 on Accession to the ECHR. European Law Review, 40, 683–705.Google Scholar
Del Moral, I. (2006). The Increasingly Marginal Appreciation of the Margin-of-Appreciation Doctrine. German Law Journal, 7, 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delcamp, A., Balducci, M., & Busch, J.-D., et al. (1994). Definition and Limits of the Principle of Subsidiarity. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Delors, J. (1989). Speech at the Opening Session. EC Commission Document, Speech/89/73.Google Scholar
Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M. (eds.) (2022). International Legal Theories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durieux, H. (2012). Subsidiarity, Anarchism, and the Governance of Complexity. In Loisen, J. & De Ville, F. (eds.) Subsidiarity and Multi-Level Governance. Wetteren: Universa, 15–26.Google Scholar
Duxbury, A. & Tan, H.-L. (2019). Can ASEAN Take Human Rights Seriously? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyzenhaus, D. (2010). Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Annual Report 2014. www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/annual_report_2014_eng.Google Scholar
EFTA Court – European Free Trade Association Court (2024). Jurisdiction – Organization. https://eftacourt.int/the-court/questions-and-answers/.Google Scholar
Ellingsen, H. (2022). Reconciling Fundamental Social Rights and Economic Freedoms: The ECtHR’s Ruling in LO and NTF v. Norway (the Holship Case). Common Market Law Review, 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endo, K. (2001). Subsidiarity and Its Enemies. Robert Schuman Working Paper 24 [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/1814/1733.Google Scholar
Engle, K., Nesiah, V., & Otto, D. (2022). Feminist Approaches to International Law. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M. (eds.) International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174–196.Google Scholar
Espejo, P. O. (2012). Paradoxes of Popular Sovereignty. Journal of Politics, 74, 1053–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (1975). Report on European Union. Bull. EC Supp 5/75, COM (75) 400 Final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2018). The Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality. COM(2018) 703 Final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2024). Regulatory Scrutiny Board. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en.Google Scholar
Evans, M. (2014). Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity. In Zimmermann & Evans (eds.) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Dordrecht: Springer, 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eze, E. C. (1998). Modern Western Philosophy and African Colonialism. In Eze, E. C. (ed.) African Philosophy: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, 213–221.Google Scholar
Eze, M. O. (2008). What Is African Communitarianism? South African Journal of Philosophy, 27, 106–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabbrini, F. (2018). The Principle of Subsidiarity. In Tridimas, T. & Schutze, R. (eds.) Oxford Principles of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221–242.Google Scholar
Fabbrini, F. & Granat, K. (2013). Yellow Card, but No Foul. Common Market Law Review, 50, 115–143.Google Scholar
Fauchald, O. K. & Nollkaemper, A. (eds.) (2012). The Practice of International and National Courts and the (de)Fragmentation of International Law, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Feichtner, I. (2007). Subsidiarity. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fenton, W. N. (1998). The Great Law and the Longhouse, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. (2016). Subsidiarity’s Roots and History. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. (1986). Theories of Justice and International Relations. In Ellis, A. (ed.) Ethics and International Relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1–11.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, K. (2010). Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, K. & Ypi, L. (eds.) (2014). Kant and Colonialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A. (1998). Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 190–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A. (2017). Exporting the Margin of Appreciation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A. (2021). Pure Public Goods and Beyond. In Zyberi, G. (ed.) Protecting Community Interests through International Law. Cambridge, MA: Intersentia, 59–98.Google Scholar
Follesdal, A. (2022). Current Contributions of the Natural Law Tradition to International Law. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M. (eds.) International Legal Theories: Foundations and Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39–62.Google Scholar
Follesdal, A. & Hix, S. (2006). Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A. & Muniz-Fraticelli, V. (2015). The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in the EU and Canada. Les Ateliers de l’Éthique/The Ethics Forum, 10, 89–106.Google Scholar
Franceschet, A. (2010). Kant, International Law, and the Problem of Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of International Political Theory, 6, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromage, D. (2015). The Second Yellow Card on the EPPO Proposal. Yearbook of European Law, 35, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromage, D. & Kreilinger, V. (2017). National Parliaments’ Third Yellow Card and the Struggle over the Revision of the Posted Workers Directive. European Journal of Legal Studies, 10, 125–160.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, J. K., Ku, C., & Strayer, C. (2005). Human-Centric International Law. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 14, 61–80.Google Scholar
Gangjian, D. & Gang, S. (1995). Relating Human Rights to Chinese Culture. In Davis, M. C. (ed.) Human Rights and Chinese Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35–56.Google Scholar
Gathii, J. T. (2011). TWAIL: A Brief History of Its Origins, Its Decentralized Network, and a Tentative Bibliography. Trade, Law and Development, 3, 26–64.Google Scholar
Gathii, J. T. (2022). The Agenda of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M. (eds.) International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–173.Google Scholar
Genesko, J. (1986). Der Wechselnde Einfluss Des Subsidiaritätsprinzip. In Jahrbuch für Nationalökonomie und Statistik. Stuttgart: Fischer, 404–421.Google Scholar
Germany, Austria, & Belgium (1997). Declaration on Subsidiarity Regarding the Treaty of Amsterdam, 143.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T. (2020). Authoritarian International Law. American Journal of International Law, 114, 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, T. & Huq, A. (2018). How to Save a Constitutional Democracy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M. (1996). Normative Theories of Local Government. In King, D. & Stoker, G. (eds.) Rethinking Local Democracy. London: Macmillan, 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golemboski, D. (2015). Federalism and the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity. Publius, 45, 526–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, J. (1996). Sovereignty and Subsidiarity in EU Environmental Policy. Political Studies, 44, 686–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. (1996). Institutionalizing the Public Interest. American Political Science Review, 90, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2007). Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35, 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, R. & Peng, I. (1996). The East Asian Welfare States. In Esping-Andersen, G. (ed.) Welfare States in Transition. London: Sage, 192–224.Google Scholar
Gosepath, S. (2005). The Principle of Subsidiarity. In Follesdal, A. & Pogge, T. (eds.) Real World Justice. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graver, H. P. (2022). The Holship Ruling of the ECtHR and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. ERA Forum, 23(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-022-00701-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, D. (2007). Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 57, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussen, B. F. (2014). Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 12, 123–144.Google Scholar
Gädeke, D. (2009). Ubuntu and Neo-Republicanism. In Hull, G. (ed.) Debating African Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge, 269–287.Google Scholar
Halberstam, D. (2015). ‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!’. German Law Journal, 16, 105–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. (1993). Contract and Consent. In Goodin, R. E. & Pettit, P. (eds.) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, 379–393.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. (1656(1992)). The Commonwealth of Oceania, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, S. (ed.) (1988). Sources of Indian Tradition, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Held, D. (2004). Democratic Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Government and Opposition, 39, 364–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. (1993). The Practice of Moral Judgment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoetjes, B. (1993). The European Tradition of Federalism. In Burgess, M. & Gagnon, A. (eds.) Comparative Federalism and Federation. Hempstead: Harvester, 117–137.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2009). A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2020). A Postfunctionalist Theory of Multilevel Governance. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22, 820–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howse, R. & Nicolaïdis, K. (2003). Enhancing WTO Legitimacy: Constitutionalization or Global Subsidiarity? Governance, 16, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howse, R. & Nicolaïdis, K. (2016). Toward a Global Ethics of Trade Governance. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 259–283.Google Scholar
Huan-Chang, C. (1911). The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School, New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Hueglin, T. O. (1987). Democracy, Democracy, and Federalism. In Bakvis, H. & Chandler, W. M. (eds.) Federalism and the Role of the State. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 32–54.Google Scholar
Hueglin, T. O. (1999). Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. V. (1850(1993)). The Limits of State Action Burrow, J. W. (ed.) Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hunt, M., Singh, R., & Demetriou, M. (1999). Is There a Role for the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ in National Law after the Human Rights Act? European Human Rights Law Review, 1, 15–22.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, K. (2012). Christian Wolff. In Fassbender, B. & Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1106–1109.Google Scholar
Iber, S. (2011). The Principle of Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Thought: Implications for Social Justice and Civil Society in Nigeria, New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ike, O. & Edozien, N. (2001). Understanding Africa: Traditional Legal Reasoning, Jurisprudence & Justice in Igboland, Enugu: CIDJAP.Google Scholar
ILC – International Law Commission (2019). General Principles of Law – First Report. A/CN.4/732.Google Scholar
ILC – International Law Commission (2022a). General Principles of Law – Second Report. A/CN.4/971.Google Scholar
ILC – International Law Commission (2022b). General Principles of Law – Third Report. A/CN.4/753.Google Scholar
ILC – International Law Commission (2023). General Principles of Law – Draft Conclusions. A/CN.4/L.982, GE.23–09074.Google Scholar
ILC – International Law Commission Study Group (2006). Fragmentation of International Law. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.702 (18 July 2006).Google Scholar
ILO – International Labour Organization (2023). Request for Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the Interpretation of ILO Convention No. 87 with Respect to the Right to Strike. International Court of Justice General List no 191. www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/191/191-20231110-req-01-00-en.pdf.Google Scholar
Isiksel, T. (2016a). Disentangling Fundamental Rights and Market Freedoms. In Europe’s Functional Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isiksel, T. (2016b). European Exceptionalism and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR. European Journal of International Law, 27, 565–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jachtenfuchs, M. & Krisch, N. (2016). Subsidiarity in Global Governance. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 1–26.Google Scholar
Jennings, R. & Watts, A. (1992). Oppenheim’s International Law Vol 1 Parts 2–4. Burnt Mill: Longman.Google Scholar
John, XXIII. (1963). Pacem in Terris. Www.Vatican.Va/Holy_Father/John_Xxiii/Encyclicals/Documents/Hf_J-Xxiii_Enc_11041963_Pacem_en.Html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, F. E. (2022). Critical International Legal Theory. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M. (eds.) International Legal Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133–152.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. (2017). Pueblos within Pueblos, Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
Kalkbrenner, H. (1972). Die Rechtliche Verbindlichkeit Des Subsidiaritätsprinzip. In Hablitzel, H. & Wollenschläger, M. (eds.) Recht und Staat. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 515–540.Google Scholar
Kammerhofer, J. (2023). Legal Positivism. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R. (eds.) Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1775(2007)). Of the Different Races of Human Beings. In Louden, R. B. & Zöller, G. (eds.) Anthropology, History, and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 82–97.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1784(1996)). An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? In Kant 1996, 11–22.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1785(2007)). Determination of the Concept of a Human Race. In Kant 2007 (ed.), 143–159.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1795(1996)). Toward Perpetual Peace. In Gregor, M. (ed.) Kant: Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 311–352.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1991). Kant’s Political Writings (2nd Ed.), Reiss, H. S. (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1996). Practical Philosophy, Gregor, M. (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2007). Anthropology, History, and Education, Louden, R. B. & Zöller, G. (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapteyn, P. (1991). Community Law and the Principle of Subsidiarity. Revue des Affaires Européennes, 2, 35–43.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, F.-X. (1988). The Principle of Subsidiarity Viewed by the Sociology of Organizations. The Jurist, 48, 275–291.Google Scholar
Keleman, R. D. (2016). The CJEU in the 21st Century. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 117–140.Google Scholar
King, L. & Blake, M. (2018). Global Cities, Global Justice? Journal of Global Ethics, 14, 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, P. (2014). Kant’s Second Thoughts on Colonialism. In Flikschuh, K. & Ypi, L. (eds.) Kant and Colonialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klumpp, M. (2013). Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Ständiges Revisionsgericht Des Mercosur, Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkott, J. (2009). The ECJ’s Interpretation of the Posting Directive in the Laval and Rüffert Judgements. In Scholz, O. & Ulrich Becker, U. (eds.) Die Auswirkungen Der Rechtsprechung Des Europäischen Gerichtshofs Auf Das Arbeitsrecht Der Mitgliedstaaten. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kongshøj, K. (2015). Social Citizenship in China and the Nordic Countries, Aalborg: Aalborg University.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2012). Hegemonic Regimes. In Young, M. A. (ed.) Regime Interaction in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochvil, J. (2011). The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the ECtHR. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29, 324–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krisch, N. (2014). The Decay of Consent. American Journal of International Law, 108, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, M. (2006). Constitutionalising Subsidiarity in Integrated Markets. European Law Journal, 12, 503–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, M. (2009). The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism. In Dunoff, J. & Trachtman, J. (eds.) Ruling the World? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 257–324.Google Scholar
Kumm, M. (2016). Sovereignty and the Right to Be Left Alone. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 239–258.Google Scholar
Kuyperus, T. (1999). State, Civil Society and Apartheid in South Africa, London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffranque, J. (2015). Subsidiarity. Seminar at Opening of Judicial Year, Strasbourg [Online]. https://cutt.ly/gED4aBC.Google Scholar
Lamy, P. (2012). Speech at the Singapore Global Dialogue: Governance of a Multipolar World Order (21 September 2012) www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl248_e.htm.Google Scholar
Larmore, C. (2001). A Critique of Philip Pettit’s Republicanism. Philosophical Issues, 11, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latimer, T. (2018a). Against Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26, 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latimer, T. (2018b). The Principle of Subsidiarity. Constellations, 25, 586–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, XIII (1891(1981)). Rerum Novarum. www.Vatican.Va/Holy_Father/Leo_Xiii/Encyclicals/Documents/Hf_L-Xiii_Enc_15051891_Rerum-Novarum_en.html.Google Scholar
Lester, A. (2009). The ECtHR after 50 Years. European Human Rights Law Review, 4, 461–478.Google Scholar
Letsas, G. (2006). Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 705–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, J. (2007). Self-Determination, Non-Domination, and Federalism. Hypatia, 23, 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1968). The Politics of Accommodation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1979). Consociation and Federation. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 22, 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1995). Self-Determination Versus Pre-Determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-Sharing Systems. In Kymlicka, W. (ed.) The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 275–288.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P. (1971). The Political Development of Yoruba Kingdoms in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper, 31.Google Scholar
Lock, T. (2015). The European Court of Justice and International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, J. (1992). The Nahuas after the Conquest, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lööw, L. (2013). The Principle of Subsidiarity, Uppsala: Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Law.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1995). Sovereignty, Democracy and Subsidiarity. In Bellamy, R., Bufacchi, V., & Castiglione, D. (eds.) Democracy and Constitutional Culture in the Union of Europe. London: Lothian Foundation.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1997). Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the ‘European Commonwealth’. Law and Philosophy, 16, 331–356.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1999). Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, S. (1993). Toleration and Fundamentalism. In Goodin, R. E. & Pettit, P. (eds.) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, 622–628.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, S. (1991). Assessment and Introduction. In Subsidiarity: The Challenge of Change. Proceedings of the Jacques Delors Colloquium 1991. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Macklem, P. (2006). Militant Democracy, Legal Pluralism, and the Paradox of Self-Determination. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4, 488–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, J. (1787(1961)). The Federalist No. 10. In Rossiter, C. (ed.) Federalist Papers, New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Madison, J. (1787(1961)). The Federalist No. 20. In Rossiter, C. (ed.) Federalist Papers, New York: Mentor, 134–137.Google Scholar
Madison, J. (1788 (1961)). The Federalist No. 51. In Rossiter, C. (ed.) Federalist Papers, New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Maliks, R. (2014). Kant’s Politics in Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, J. (2011). Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation. Harvard Law Review, 124.Google Scholar
Marquardt, P. (1994). Subsidiarity and Sovereignty in the European Union. Fordham International Law Journal, 18, 616–640.Google Scholar
Mendus, S. (1992). Kant: “An Honest but Narrow-Minded Bourgeois”? In Williams, H. (ed.) Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 166–190.Google Scholar
Merkouris, P. (2017). In Dubio Mitius. In Klingler, J., Parkhomenko, Y., & Salonidis, C. (eds.) Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 259–306.Google Scholar
Metz, T. (2007). Toward an African Moral Theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, T. (2011). Ubuntu as a Moral Theory and Human Rights in South Africa. African Human Rights Law Journal, 11, 532–559.Google Scholar
Metz, T. (2021). A Relational Moral Theory: African Ethics in and Beyond the Continent, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkola, M. (2011). Kant on Moral Agency and Women’s Nature. Kantian Review, 16, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millon-Delsol, C. (1993). Le Principe de Subsidiarité, Paris: Presses Universitaires De France.Google Scholar
Moens, G. A. & Trone, J. (2015). The Principle of Subsidiarity in EU Judicial and Legislative Practice. Journal of Legislation, 41, 65–102.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1995). Explaining International Human Rights Regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosler, H. (1999). General Principles of Law. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 511–526.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1987). Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Policy, 16, 215–240.Google Scholar
Neuman, G. (2013). Subsidiarity. In Shelton, D. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 360–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neunreither, K. (1993). Subsidiarity as a Guiding Principle for European Community Activities. Government and Opposition, 28, 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nine, C. (2022). Sharing Territories: Overlapping Self-Determination and Resource Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2010). Rethinking the Supremacy of International Law. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, 65, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (2006). Paul Samuelson and Global Public Goods. In Szenberg, M., Ramrattan, L., & Gottesman, A. A. (eds.) Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, W. (2005). Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, S. M. (1989). Reason and Feeling in Thinking about Justice. Ethics, 99, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, S. M. 1979(2013). Women in Western Political Thought, Satz, D. (ed.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orakhelashvili, A. (2003). Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the ECtHR. European Journal of International Law, 14, 529–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, D. (2016). Feminist Approaches to International Law. In Orford, A. & Hoffmann, F. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padou-Schioppa, T. (1995). Economic Federalism and the European Union. In Knop, K., Ostry, S., Simeon, R., & Swinton, K. (eds.) Rethinking Federalism. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, S. (ed.) (2023). UN Security Council Reform. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Paulus, A. (2005). Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation. Nordic Journal of International Law, 74, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, A. (2008). Subsidiarity, Fragmentation and Democracy. In Broude, T. & Shany, Y. (eds.) The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law. Oxford: Hart, 193–213.Google Scholar
Paulus, A. (2013). Human Rights Protection in a European Network of Courts. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 107, 174–182.Google Scholar
Pavone, T. & Stiansen, Ø. (2022). The Shadow Effect of Courts. American Political Science Review, 116, 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellet, A. (2000). State Sovereignty and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights. Pugwash Occasional Papers, 1, 37–45.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (2006). Compensatory Constitutionalism. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19, 579–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. (2009). Humanity as the Alpha and Omega of Sovereignty. European Journal of International Law, 20, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P. (1997). Exhaustion of Local Remedies. Netherlands International Law Review, 44, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersmann, E.-U. (2002). Time for a United Nations ‘Global Compact’ for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations. European Journal of International Law, 13, 621–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pius, XI (1931). Quadragesimo Anno. www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html.Google Scholar
Pizano, P. (2020). Chile: The Risk of a New Constitution. McCain Institute. www.mccaininstitute.org/resources/blog/chile-the-risks-of-a-new-constitution/.Google Scholar
Pollack, M. (2002). The End of Creeping Competence? Journal of Common Market Studies, 38, 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proudhon, P.-J. (1863(1979)). The Principle of Federation and the Need to Reconstitute the Party of the Revolution, Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Proudhon, P.-J. (1994). What Is Property? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, Y. & Weingast, B. (1997). Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (2010). Human Rights in the Emerging World Order. Transnational Legal Theory, 1, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (2013). On Waldron’s Critique of Raz on Human Rights. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 80/2013, Oxford.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (2017). Why the State? In Roughan, N. & Halpin, A. (eds.) In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (2019). The Future of State Sovereignty. In Sadurski, W., Sevel, M., & Walton, K. (eds.) Legitimacy: The State and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebhahn, R. (2009). The Recent Jurisprudence of the ECJ. In Scholz, O. & Becker, U. (eds.) Die Auswirkungen Der Rechtsprechung Des Europäischen Gerichtshofs. Baden: Nomos, 157–163.Google Scholar
Resnik, J., Civin, J., & Frueh, J. (2008). Ratifying Kyoto at the Local Level. Arizona Law Review, 50, 709–786.Google Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2009). Force and Freedom, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, A. (2014). Kant’s Juridical Theory of Colonialism. In Flikschuh & Ypi (eds.), 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, C. & Gerstenberg, O. (2010). Constitutionalising an Overlapping Consensus. European Law Journal, 16, 511–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1955). Diagrammatic Exposition of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 21, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, B., Mowbray, J., & Baghoomians, I. (2011). The Last Frontier of Human Rights Protection. Australian International Law Journal, 18, 23–52.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1978). Rights, Goals and Fairness. In Hampshire, S. (ed.) Public and Private Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1982). Contractualism and Utilitarianism. In Sen, A. & Williams, B. (eds.) Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1992). The Aims and Authority of Moral Theory. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1995). Moral Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, O. (1982). General Course in Public International Law: Recueil Des Cours, Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1988). The Joint Decision Trap. Public Administration, 66, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, T. (1995). Subsidiarity as a Rule and a Principle, Or: Taking Subsidiarity Seriously. Jean Monnet Working Papers [Online]. https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/95/9510ind.html.Google Scholar
Schott, R. M. (ed.) (1997). Feminist Interpretations of Immanuel Kant, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schuman, R. (1950). Declaration of May 9. www.robert-schuman.org/anglais/robert-schuman/declaration.html.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. & Ginsburg, T. (2012). The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship. American Journal of International Law, 106, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Y. (2005). Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine? European Journal of International Law, 16, 907–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Y. (2012). One Law to Rule Them All. In Fauchald, O. K. & Nollkaemper, A. (eds.) The Practice of International and National Courts and the (de)Fragmentation of International Law. Oxford: Hart, 15–34.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2006). What Is the Internal Point of View. Fordham Law Review, 75, 1157–1170.Google Scholar
Shaw, K. (2018). The CJEU: Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Boston, MA: Brill – Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simma, B. & Paulus, A. (1999). The Responsibility of Individuals for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflicts. The American Journal of International Law, 93, 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. (1984). The Idea of Negative Liberty. In Rorty, R., Skinner, Q., & Schneewind, J. B. (eds.) Philosophy in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 204–219.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). A Liberal Theory of International Law. Proceedings American Society of International Law, 94, 240.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A New World Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. D. (1983). Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spano, R. (2018). The Future of the ECtHR. Human Rights Law Review, 18, 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 381–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (2013). The Structure of Constitutional Pluralism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. & Andenas, M. (2022). The Law and Politics of the General Principles of Law in the Twenty-First Century. University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 56, University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. & Ryan, C. (2021). A Cosmopolitan Legal Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, X. (2020). Reestablishing the Significance of ‘Family’ in the Modern World. Contemporary Social Sciences, 4, 44–59.Google Scholar
Suttle, O. (2018). Distributive Justice and World Trade Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. (2005). Margins of Appreciation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J. (ed.) (1995). Human Rights and International Relations in the Asia-Pacific Region, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Therborn, G. (1989). ‘Pillarization’ and ‘Popular Movements’. In Castles, F. G. (ed.) The Comparative History of Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 192–241.Google Scholar
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TNI-Transnational Institute. (2021). Chile. www.tni.org/en/article/chile-the-battle-for-a-transformative-new-constitution.Google Scholar
Treisman, D. (2007). The Architecture of Government, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trindade, A. A. C. (2006). El Derecho Internacional de Los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI. Santiago: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.Google Scholar
Tully, J. (2008). The Kantian Idea of Europe. In Tully, J. (ed.) Imperialism and Civic Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–42.Google Scholar
Usman, A. & Falola, T. (eds.) (2019). The Yoruba from Prehistory to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kersbergen, K. & Verbeek, B. (1994). The Politics of Subsidiarity in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kersbergen, K. & Verbeek, B. (2007). The Politics of International Norms. European Journal of International Relations, 13, 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Til, K. (2008). Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty – A Match Made In … ? Theological Studies, 69, 610–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varden, H. (2017). Kant and Women. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98, 653–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viehoff, D. (2011). Procedure and Outcome in the Justification of Authority. Journal of Political Philosophy, 19, 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Nell-Breuning, O. (1962). Subsidiaritätsprinzip. In Staatslexicon. Freiburg: Herder, 826–833.Google Scholar
Von Nell-Breuning, O. (1986). The Drafting of Quadragesimo Anno. In Curran, C. & McCormick, R. (eds.) Official Catholic Social Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 60–68.Google Scholar
Von Staden, A. (2012). Democratic Legitimacy of Review Beyond the State. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10, 1023–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Staden, A. (2016a). Subsidiarity in Regional Integration Regimes in Latin America and Africa. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 27–52.Google Scholar
Von Staden, A. (2016b). Subsidiarity, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, and the Margin of Appreciation in the Human Rights Jurisprudence of African Sub-Regional Courts. The International Journal of Human Rights, 20, 1113–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (1987). Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism. Philosophical Quarterly, 37, 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (2013). Separation of Powers in Thought and Practice? Boston College Law Review, 54, 433–468.Google Scholar
Walker, A. & Wong, C. (eds.) (2005). East Asian Welfare Regimes in Transition, Briston: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Walther, R. (2022). Subsidiarity: The ECHR between Law and Politics (PhD Dissertation), University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Walther, R. (2025). Subsidiarity, Legitimacy, and the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wamala, E. Government by Consensus: An Analysis of a Traditional Form of Democracy. In Wiredu (ed.) A Companion to African Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, 435–442.Google Scholar
Wamba-Dia-Wamba, E. (1992). Beyond Elite Politics of Democracy in Africa. Quest, 28–43, 6.Google Scholar
Weale, A. (2020). Modern Social Contract Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1972). Politics as a Vocation. In Gerth, H. & Mills, C. (eds.) Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press, 77–128.Google Scholar
Wehr, H. & Cowan, J. (2020). Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Fourth Edition), Hawthorne, CA: BN.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Review, 100, 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberger, L. (2014). The Relationship between Sphere Sovereignty and Subsidiarity. In Zimmermann, A. & Evans, M. (eds.) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity, Dordrecht: Springer, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, B. (2014). Second Generation Fiscal Federalism. World Development, 53, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstock, D. (2014). Cities and Federalism. In Fleming, J. & Levy, J. (eds.) Federalism and Subsidiarity. New York: NYU Press, 259–290.Google Scholar
Whelan, F. G. (1983). Prologue. In Pennock, R. & Chapman, J. W. (eds.) Liberal Democracy. New York: Nomos, 13–47.Google Scholar
Williams, H. (2014). Colonialism in Kant’s Political Philosophy. Diametros, 39, 154–181.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (ed.) (2020). Deparochializing Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C. (1736(1996)). Vernünfftige Gedancken Von Dem Gesellschaftlichen Leben Der Menschen und Insonderheit Dem Gemeinen Wesen. In École, J. (ed.) Christian Wolff. Hildesheim: G. Olms.Google Scholar
Wolff, C. 1728 (1966). Methodi Philosophicae Eaedem Sunt Regulae, Quae Methodi Mathematicae. In Gawlick, G. & Kreimendahl, L. (eds.) Discursus Praeliminaris de Philosophia in Genere. Stuttgart: Frommann.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (1999). Kant’s Ethical Thought, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. (2000). Hybrid Democracy. In Ivison, D., Patton, P., & Sanders, W. (eds.) Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 236–258.Google Scholar
Young, M. (ed.) (2012). Regime Interaction in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yourow, H. (1996). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Human Rights Jurisprudence, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zhao, D. (2015). The Confucian-Legalist State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmermann, A. & Evans, M. (eds.) (2014). Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. (2018). A Theory of Global Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zysow, A. (2012). Zakat. In Bearman, P., Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E., & Heinrichset, W. P. (eds.) Encyclopaedia of Islam. Leiden: Brill Reference, XI:406b.Google Scholar
This Element is free online from 20th February 2025 - 6th March 2025