Dialogues on Italian Constitutional Justice

Introduction; 2. Dialogue as Method, Vittoria Barsotti, Paolo G. Carozza, Marta Cartabia, and Andrea Simoncini; Dialogue I: Constitutional courts and legal scholarship; 3. Je t'aime... moi non plus: some considerations on (and impressions of) the relationships between constitutional justice and legal scholarship, Paolo Passaglia; 4. The wasp and the orchid: constitutional justice and legal scholarship need each other, Marc Verdussen; Dialogue II: Open and closed forms of constitutional adjudication; 5. Openness and transparency in constitutional adjudication: amici curiae, third-party intervention, and fact-finding powers, Tania Groppi and Anna Maria Lecis Cocco Ortu; 6. Procedural rules and the cultivation of well-informed and responsive constitutional judiciaries, Maartje De Visser; Dialogue III: The principle of collegiality; 7. Collegiality over personality: the refusal of separate opinions in Italy, Diletta Tega; 8. `Collegiality' in comparative context, Sarah Harding; Dialogue IV: Access to constitutional adjudication; 9. Direct constitutional complaint and Italian style do not match. But why? Elisabetta Lamarque; 10. The potential virtues and risks of abstract constitutional challenges and individual complaints: some reflections from Spain, Victor Ferreres Comella; Dialogue V: Judicial reasoning and interpretation; 11. Forms and methods of constitutional interpretation - Italian style, Giorgio Pino; 12. The relationship between forms and methods in constitutional interpretation: comparative reflections, Jeff Pojanowski; Dialogue VI: National constitutional adjudication in a transnational context ; 13. The Italian constitutional court in the European space - an empirical approach, Marta Infantino; 14. European relationality in the European legal space: country-specific mixtures within one European style, Patricia Popelier; 15. Power is perfected in weakness: on the authority of the Italian constitutional court, Armin von Bogdandy and Davide Paris;