Диссертация (1136345), страница 44
Текст из файла (страница 44)
2004. Том 98. № 2. С. 293–310.41. Bergara, M., Richman, B., Spiller, P.T. Modeling Supreme Court StrategicDecision Making: The Congressional Constraint // Legislative Studies Quarterly.2003. Том 28. № 2. С. 247–280.42. Bernard, J. Dimensions and axes of Supreme Court decisions: a study in thesociology of conflict // Social Forces. 1955. Том 34. № 1. С. 19–27.43. Bersier Ladavac, N.
Hans Kelsen (1881–1973): Biographical Note andBibliography // European Journal of International Law. 1998. Том 9. № 2. С.391–400.44. Best, B. Law Clerks, Support Personnel, and the Decline of Consensual Normson the United States Supreme Court, 1935-1995. LFB Scholarly, 2002.45. Beyme, K. von The Russian Constitutional Court in an Uneasy Triangle betweenthe President, Parliament and Regions // Constitutional Justice, East and West:Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe ina Comparative Perspective / ред.
W. Sadurski. Springer, 2003. С. 309–326.46. Black, R., Boyd, C. The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’sAgenda-Setting Process // American Politics Research. 2012. Том 40. № 1. С.147–173.47. Blake, W.D., Hacker, H.J., Hopwood, S.R.
Seasonal Affective Disorder: Clerk230Training and the Success of Supreme Court Certiorari Petitions // Law &Society Rev. 2015. Том 49. № 4. С. 973–997.48. Brisbin, R.A. Slaying the dragon: Segal, Spaeth and the function of law inSupreme Court decision making // American Journal of Political Science. 1996.Том 40. № 4.
С. 1004–1017.49. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R.M., Morrow, J.D. The Logic OfPolitical Survival. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003. 556 с.50. Bugaric, B. Courts as Policy-Makers: Lessons from Transition // Harv. Int’l L. J.2001. Том 42. С. 247.51. Burnham, W., Trochev, A. Russia’s War between the Courts: The Struggle overthe Jurisdictional Boundary between the Constitutional Court and RegularCourts // The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2007.
С. 381–452.52. Cameron, C.M., Cover, A.D., Segal, J.A. Senate Voting on Supreme CourtNominees: A Neoinstitutional Model // American Political Science Review.1990. Том 84. № 02. С. 525–534.53. Caminker, E.H. Sincere and Strategic Voting Norms on Multimember Courts //Michigan Law Review.
1999. Том 97. № 8. С. 2297–2380.54. Cann, D.M., Yates, J. Homegrown institutional legitimacy: Assessing citizens’diffuse support for state courts // American Politics Research. 2007.55. Carothers, T. The End of the Transition Paradigm // Journal of Democracy. 2002.Том 13. № 1. С. 5–21.56. Carrubba, C.J., Gabel, M., Hankla, C. Judicial Behavior under PoliticalConstraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice // American PoliticalScience Review.
2008. Том 102. № 4. С. 435–452.57. Carrubba, C.J., Gabel, M., Hankla, C. Understanding the role of the EuropeanCourt of Justice in European integration // American Political Science Review.2012. Том 106. № 1. С. 214–223.58. Clark, T.S. The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy //American Journal of Political Science. 2009. Том 53. № 4. С. 971–989.59. Colomer J.
It’s Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (Or, Duverger’s LawsUpside Down) // Political Studies, 2005. Том 53. № 1. Сс. 1-21.60. Conant, L.J. Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Ithaca:231Cornell University Press, 2002. 284 с.61. Dahl, R.A. Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a nationalpolicy-maker // J.
Pub. L. 1957. Том 6. № 2. С. 279.62. Dahl, R.A. The concept of power // Behavioral Science. 1957. Том 2. № 3. С.201–215.63. Easton, D. The political system besieged by the state // Political Theory. 1981.Том 9. № 3. С. 303–325.64. Easton, D. The political system. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953.65.
Epp, C.R. The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts incomparative perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. 326 с.66. Epstein L., Landes W., Posner R. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoreticaland Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Harvard University Press, 2013.67. Epstein, L., Jacobi, T. The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Decisions // AnnualReview of Law and Social Science. 2010.
Том 6. № 1. С. 341–358.68. Epstein, L., Knight, J. The Choices Justices Make. Washington D.C.: CQ Press,1998.69. Epstein, L., Martin, A.D., Quinn, K.M., Segal, J.A. Ideological Drift amongSupreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important // Nw. U. L. Rev.2007.
Том 101. С. 1483.70. Eskridge, W.N. Overriding Supreme Court statutory interpretation decisions //Yale Law Journal. 1991. Том 101. № 2. С. 331–455.71. Eskridge, W.N. Reneging on history? Playing the Court/Congress/President civilrights game // California Law Review. 1991. Том 79. № 3. С. 613–684.72.
Favoreu, L. American and European models of constitutional justice //Comparative and private international law: Essays in honor of John HenryMerryman / ред. D. S. Clark. Duncker & Humblot, 1990.73. Ferejohn, J. Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law // Law and ContemporaryProblems. 2002.
Том 65. № 3. С. 41–68.74. Ferejohn, J., Weingast, B. A positive theory of statutory interpretation //International Review of Law and Economics. 1992. Том 12. № 2. С. 263–279.75. Follesdal, A., Hix, S. Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to232Majone and Moravcsik // JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies.
2006. Том44. № 3. С. 533–562.76. Franck, R. Judicial independence under a divided polity: a study of the rulingsof the French Constitutional Court, 1959–2006 // Journal of Law, Economics,and Organization. 2009. Том 25. № 1. С. 262–284.77. Gandhi J., Lust-Okar E.
Elections Under Authoritarianism // Annual Review ofPolitical Science, 2009. Том 12. № 1. Сс. 403–42278. Gandhi J., Przeworski A. Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats// Comparative Political Studies, 2007. Том 40. № 11. Сс. 1279–1301.79. Garrett, G., Kelemen, R.D., Schulz, H. The European Court of Justice, nationalgovernments, and legal integration in the European Union // InternationalOrganization. 1998. Том 52. № 1.
С. 149–176.80. Garrett, G., Weingast, B.R. Ideas, interests and institutions: Constructing theEC’s internal market // Ideas and Foreigh Policy / ред. J. Goldstein, R. O.Keohane. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. С. 173–206.81. Gely, R., Spiller, P.T. A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court StatutoryDecisions with Applications to the «State Farm» and «Grove City Cases» //Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 1990.
Том 6. № 2. С. 263–300.82. Gely, R., Spiller, P.T. The political economy of supreme court constitutionaldecisions: The case of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan // International Review ofLaw and Economics. 1992. Том 12. № 1. С. 45–67.83. Gibbard, A. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result // Econometrica:journal of the Econometric Society.
1973. Том 41. № 4. С. 587–601.84. Gibson, J.L. “New-Style” judicial campaigns and the legitimacy of state highcourts // The Journal of Politics. 2009. Том 71. № 04. С. 1285–1304.85. Gibson, J.L. Challenges to the impartiality of state supreme courts: Legitimacytheory and “new-style” judicial campaigns // American Political ScienceReview.
2008. Том 102. № 01. С. 59–75.86. Gibson, J.L., Caldeira, G.A. Changes in the legitimacy of the European Court ofJustice: A post-Maastricht analysis // British Journal of Political Science. 1998.Том 28. № 01. С. 63–91.87. Gibson, J.L., Caldeira, G.A., Baird, V.A. On the legitimacy of national highcourts // American Political Science Review.
1998. Том 92. № 02. С. 343–358.23388. Gibson, J.L., Gottfried, J.A., Carpini, M.X.D., Jamieson, K.H. The effects ofjudicial campaign activity on the legitimacy of courts: A survey-basedexperiment // Political Research Quarterly. 2010. С. 1065912910370684.89. Ginsburg, T. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts inAsian Cases.
Cambridge University Press, 2003.90. Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z. Ancillary Powers of Constitutional Courts // Texas LawReview. 2009. Том 87. № 7. С. 1431–1461.91. Gloppen, S. The accountability function of the courts in Tanzania and Zambia //Democratization. 2003. Том 10. № 4. С. 112–136.92. Goelzhauser, G., Cann, D.M.
Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity onState Supreme Courts // State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 2014. Том 14. № 2. С.123–141.93. Golosov G. Authoritarian Party Systems: Patterns of Emergence, Sustainabilityand Survival // Comparative Sociology, 2013. Том 12. № 5. Сс. 617–644.94. Haddow, A. Political science in American colleges and universities, 1636-1900.New York: Appleton-Century company, 1939.95. Hadenius, A., Teorell, J.
Pathways from Authoritarianism // Journal ofDemocracy. 2007. Том 18. № 1. Сс. 143–157.96. Handberg, R., Hill Jr., H.F. Court Curbing, Court Reversals, and JudicialReview: The Supreme Court versus Congress // Law & Soc’y Rev. 1980. Том14. № 2. С. 309–322.97. Hanretty, C. Dissent in Iberia: The ideal points of justices on the Spanish andPortuguese Constitutional Tribunals // European Journal of Political Research.2012.
Том 51. № 5. С. 671–692.98. Hausmaninger, H. From the Soviet committee of constitutional supervision tothe Russian Constitutional Court // Cornell International Law Journal. 1992. Том25. С. 305.99. Helmke, G. Checks and Balances by Other Means: Strategic Defection andArgentina’s Supreme Court in the 1990s // Comparative Politics. 2003. Том 35.№ 2.
С. 213–230.100. Helmke, G. The logic of strategic defection: Court–executive relations inArgentina under dictatorship and democracy // American Political ScienceReview. 2002. Том 96. № 02. С. 291–303.234101. Henderson, J. Making a drama out of a crisis: the Russian Constitutional Courtand the case of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union // King’s Law Journal.2008. Том 19. № 3. С.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
