Constitutional Review in the Member States of the EU‐28: A Political Analysis of Institutional Choices

Abstract

Literature in law and political science has suggested a number of factors explaining choices on the implementation of constitutional review. However, so far little is known about how such factors combine in order to lead to different models of review. With the aid of configurational research, this article sheds light on that question for all countries of the current EU‐28. In this region, the Kelsenian model of specialized courts, the system of review by the judicial branch, and the model of parliamentary sovereignty still currently coexist. This article shows that phenomena such as the type of legal family of the country, an authoritarian past, or political fragmentation play a major role in choices of models of constitutional review. However, it is only when they combine that they are capable of leading to particular outcomes.