Federal Supremacy and the Occupied Field: A Comparative Critique

Arun Sagar

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2013, vol. 43, issue 2, 251-274

Abstract: This article undertakes a comparative study of the concept of federal supremacy as it appears in the constitutional texts and judicial doctrine of the United States, Australia, India, Canada, and Germany. It discusses the complex judicial techniques and principles developed in each of these federations, and argues that the approaches based on "conflict" and "field," respectively, should be distinguished as opposing paradigms of interpretation. The field approach is criticized as being incompatible with a coherent vision of supremacy, and as being itself replete with conceptual problems that are unnecessary to the resolution of cases. It is further suggested that the conflict approach is in itself sufficiently flexible to be adapted to all situations. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjs034 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:publus:v:43:y:2013:i:2:p:251-274

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Publius: The Journal of Federalism is currently edited by Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco

More articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism from CSF Associates Inc. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().