United in Diversity? National Courts and European Law

National courts resolve the vast majority of disputes that engage European law. Hailed as a means to protect rights and enforce obligations, most scholars laud these efforts unless national judges diverge from established doctrines. By contrast, many domestic officials assail judgments that privilege European over local norms, proclaiming an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, the extent to which domestic judiciaries engage European law varies substantially. While theorists identify causes of both uniformity and diversity in legal interpretation, empirical accounts uncover substantial differences in the ways that national judges apply, evade, and resist European law. To address these competing visions, this paper will provide an overview of theoretical debates and empirical explorations of the manner in which national courts interact with a Europeanizing rule of law. I will explore judicial application of both European Union (EU) law and the European Convention on Human Rights. I (expect to) conclude that legal pluralism will prevail despite pressures for convergence given the multitude of competing interests that characterize both European legal regimes.