KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 54 Sayı: 2

TOPLULUK/BİRLİK İLE ÜYE DEVLETLER ARASINDA YETKİ PAYLAŞIMI: AVRUPA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ Mİ? BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİN AVRUPASI MI

The Division Of Powers Between The Community/Union And The Member States: United States Of Europe? Or Europe Of United States?

Arif Köktaş
Sayfa
219–247
Yayın Tarihi
2005-03-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

-

Abstract

-

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Köktaş, A. (2005). TOPLULUK/BİRLİK İLE ÜYE DEVLETLER ARASINDA YETKİ PAYLAŞIMI: AVRUPA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ Mİ? BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİN AVRUPASI MI. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 2, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000000410

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (33)

  1. Arsava, A. Füsun, (2000), Amsterdam Antlaşmasının Avrupa Birliği Hukukuna Katkıları (Makaleler Derlemesi), A.Ü. SBF Yayınları, No: 589, Ankara.
  2. Arsava, A. Füsun, (2003), Nice Antlaşması Sonrası Avrupa Birliği’nin Geleceği, Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Toplulukları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Araştırma Dizisi No: 18, Ankara.
  3. Basedow, Jürgen, (2003), “Avrupa Özel Hukukunun Doğuşu” (Çev. Ayşe Oğuz), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 52, Sayı 3, ss. 1-18.
  4. Bernard, Nicolas, (1996), “The Future of Economic Law in the Light of the Principle of Subsidiarity,” 33 Common Market Law Review 633.
  5. Bozkurt, Enver, Mehmet Özcan, Arif Köktaş, (2004), Avrupa Birliği Hukuku, Asil Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
  6. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of October 27, 1992 on the principle of subsidiarity, Bull EC 10, p. 2.2.1, 121.
  7. Craig, Paul and Grainne de Burca, (2003), EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 3th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  8. Craig, Paul, (2001), “Constitutions, Constitutionalism and the European Union” 7 European Law Review 125-150.
  9. Dashwood, Alan, (1996), “The Limits of European Community Powers”, 21 European Law Review 113.
  10. Dashwood, Alan, (2004), “The Relationship Between the Member States and the European Union/European Community”, 41 Common Market Law Review 355-381.
  11. De Burca, Grainne, (1998), “The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Court of Justice as an Institutional Actor”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 36, No 2, Jun, pp. 217-236.
  12. Di Fabio, Udo, (2002), “Some Remarks on the Allocation of Competences Between the European Union and its Member States”, 39 Common Market Law Review 1289-1301.
  13. Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, (2002), Constitutional Law of the European Union, Pearson/Longman, Essex.
  14. Ehlermann, Claus Dieter, (1998), “Differentiation, Flexibility, Closer Co- operation: The New Provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty”, European Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept., pp. 246-270.
  15. Emiliou, Nicholas, (1992), “Subsidiarity: an Effective Barrier Against the Enterprises of Ambition,” 17 European Law Review 383.
  16. Foster, Nigel, (2004), EC Legislation 2003-2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  17. Gaja, Giorgio, (1998), “How Flexible is Flexibility under the Amsterdam Treaty?”, 35 Common Market Law Review 855.
  18. Gonzales, José Palacio, (1995), “The Principle of Subsidiarity: A Guide For Lawyers with a Particular Community Orientation”, 20 European Law Review 357.
  19. Hartley, T.C., (1998), The Foundations of European Community Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  20. http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/our_currency_en.htm (erişim tarihi: 05.01.2005)
  21. http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/laec ken_council/en/index.htm (erişim tarihi: 10.01.2005)
  22. http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm (erişim tarihi: 05.01.2005)
  23. Kortenberg, Helmut, (1998), “Closer Cooperation in the Treaty of Amsterdam”, 35 Common Market Law Review 833.
  24. Lenaerts, Koen and Marlies Desomer, (2002), “Bricks for a Constitutional Treaty of the European Union: Values, Objectives and Means” 27 European Law Review 377-407.
  25. Oder, Bertil Emrah, (2004), Avrupa Birliği’nde Anayasa ve Anayasacılık, Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, İstanbul.
  26. Okutan, Gül, (2000), Topluluğun ve Üye Ülkelerin Yetki Alanlarının Belirlenmesi, (Tekinalp/Tekinalp), Avrupa Birliği Hukuku, Beta, İstanbul.
  27. Shaw, Jo, (1998), “The Treaty of Amsterdam: Challenges of Flexibility and Legitimacy”, European Law Journal Vol. 4, No 1, March, pp. 63-86.
  28. Stubb, A.C. G. (1996), “A Categorisation of Differentiated Integration”, 2 Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 283-295.
  29. Stubb, A.C. G. (1997), “The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and the Management of Flexible Integration”, 4 Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 37–55.
  30. Tekinalp, Gülören, (2000), AB’nin Geleceğine İlişkin Beklentiler, (Tekinalp/Tekinalp), Avrupa Birliği Hukuku, Beta, İstanbul.
  31. Van Kersbergen, Kees and Bertjan Verbeek, (1994), “The Politics of Subsidiarity in the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 32, No 2, June, pp. 215-236.
  32. Weiler, Joseph H.H., (2002), “A Constitution for Europe? Some Hard Choices”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 563-580.
  33. Yatanagas, Xenophon A., (2001), “The Treaty of Nice: The Sharing of Power and the Institutional Balance in the European Union- A Continental Perspective” European Law Journal, Vol. 7, No, 3, pp. 242-291.