Acceso usuarios
Arranging the newly arrived items, the bookseller is confronted with the conundrum of where to place the books under review here. At first glance, both dwell on similar subjects: rule of law here, rule of law there. Indeed, they deal with related questions: how can the rule of law be conceptualized and how is it put into meaningful practice within the conglomerate of European institutions? Furthermore, what is the specific role of this "elusive" (Wennerström, at 41) concept? Both contribute to the emerging field of research on the rule of law. They enrich the debate on cross-fertilization of legal regimes as well as on how to balance commonality and difference in European cooperation. Moreover, both books promise the reader an insider's insight, Francis G. Jacobs being a former Advocate General at the ECJ, and Erik O. Wennerström having worked at the European Commission.
Taking style, audience, and scope into account, though, there are differences between the two: one book is the printed version of a conversational lecture directed at the wider public in the UK; the other a doctoral thesis defended at Uppsala University. One deals with modern competencies of courts in and related to all of the transnational European institutions, while the other one discusses rule of law concepts advanced solely by branches of the EU system.
The central aim of Jacobs' book is to win the hearts and minds of the English audience in favour of a European legal order which is based on strong (both national and European) courts. His assertions are provocative - in spite of the important role of courts in developing the Common Law. Although this is not made explicit, the claims are directed against the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, a principle most highly cherished in English public law. The gist �
