This forward-thinking book examines numerous features in the European Union (EU) legal system that serve to reduce legal uncertainty in the preliminary reference procedure and the rulings of the Court of Justice. Drawing on theories from legal realist Karl Llewellyn, legal steadying factors such as legal doctrine and interpretative techniques are reviewed alongside the primary focus of this book, extra-legal steadying factors. As well as focusing on the contribution made by judges' legal backgrounds, John Cotter also investigates the role of the balance between institutional and personal independence and accountability. He further applies Karl Llewellyn's approach and re-models it into a European setting, identifying the EU legal system features that assist in promoting decisional steadiness in the preliminary reference procedure. Exploring also the significance of procedural rules and practices at the Court of Justice in steadying outcomes, this book will be an excellent resource for scholars of the EU legal system. Its analysis of the role of factors that steady the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union will also make this a useful read for legal theorists interested in examining the factors that influence judicial decision-making.

'This collection is a timely survey of the role of constitutional courts in comparative perspective - it provides an excellent summary of developments in a range of jurisdictions, and locates them in a broader social and political context. Among other factors, it considers global trends toward increasing international and regional human rights protection, increased recognition of second and third generation rights, and trends toward decentralization in democratic governance. It is bound to be of broad interest to both comparative constitutional lawyers and scholars.' - Rosalind Dixon, University of New South Wales, Australia Constitutional review has become an essential feature of modern liberal democratic constitutionalism. In particular, constitutional review in the context of rights litigation has proved to be most challenging for the courts. By offering in-depth analyses on changes affecting constitutional design and constitutional adjudication, while also engaging with general theories of comparative constitutionalism, this book seeks to provide a heightened understanding of the constitutional and political responses to the issue of adaptability and endurance of rights-based constitutional review. These original contributions, written by an array of distinguished experts and illustrated by the most up-to-date case law, cover Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, and include constitutional systems that are not commonly studied in comparative constitutional studies. Providing structured analyses, the editors combine studies of common law and civil law jurisdictions, centralized and decentralized systems of constitutional review, and large and small jurisdictions. This multi-jurisdictional study will appeal to members of the judiciary, policy-makers and practitioners looking for valuable insights into the case law of a range of constitutional and supreme courts in this rapidly expanding field of constitutional adjudication. It also serves as an excellent resource for academics, scholars and advanced students in the fields of law, human rights and political science. Contributors: J. Bell, E. Carolan, C. Chandrachud, A. Kavanagh, C. Kelly, J. Lavapuro, T. Ojanen, M.-L. Paris, P. Passaglia, A.R. Robledo, M. Rosenfeld, M. Scheinin, J. Stellios, R. Uitz, M. Verdussen, M. Zagor