Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity
Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity
This chapter explores different conceptions of the principle of subsidiarity and their implications for constitutional and institutional design. It begins with a discussion of four alternative theories of subsidiarity that draw on insights from Althusius, the American Confederalists, economic or fiscal federalism, and Catholic Personalism, respectively. It then considers some areas where the different conceptions of subsidiarity yield surprisingly different recommendations, with particular emphasis on two key issues: who should have the authority to apply the principle of subsidiarity, and which objectives guide the application of subsidiarity—Pareto improvements, human rights, or redistribution across member units. The chapter concludes by highlighting the dilemmas presented by competing traditions of subsidiarity for the European Court of Human Rights, American constitutional federalism, debates in Europe about the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and international law.
Keywords: subsidiarity, Althusius, American Confederalists, fiscal federalism, Catholic Personalism, European Court of Human Rights, constitutional federalism, European Union, international law
NYU Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
