Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Law, Law of the European Union and National Constitutional Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Common European Legal Thinking

Abstract

There is no relation in the shape of a strict hierarchy of norms between the three legal orders which are mentioned in the heading. For international law and national constitutional law, this is a matter of common knowledge. The hierarchy or grading of norms regularly arises from an allocation of competences. Internally, this is given by constitutional law. As an example I refer to Art. 31 BL [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany], which reads as follows: “Federal law shall take precedence over Land law.” At first view this Article seems to establish a strict hierarchy of federal law over Land law. But by looking at the regulations of competence for legislative powers in the Basic Law, it becomes clear, that there is Land law which cannot be overridden by federal law, because the Federation lacks the legislative powers. If the Federation regulated in the field of Land legislative powers, then its laws would be void in default of legislative powers. Therefore, no federal law would exist that could override Land law. Only in the field of concurrent legislative powers (Art. 72.1/2, 74 BL) – newly besides some exceptions (Art. 72.3 BL) – the sentence “Federal law shall take precedence over Land law” applies. Within the legal order of the Federation or a state a strict hierarchy between the constitution and the laws and those and legal regulations is valid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvN 1/69 (Order of 29 January 1974) – Landesgrundrechte (in BVerfGE 36, 342 [361 et seq.]); to the relationship of federal constitutional law to state constitutions cf. Badura 1995, p. 112 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Art. 38.1 of the Statute of the ICJ.

  3. 3.

    Kempen, in von Mangoldt et al. (2010), Art. 59, para 98 et seq.; Rauschning, in Kahl et al. (2009), Art. 59, para 103 et seq.

  4. 4.

    On this problem see the example of a current case of tax law cf. Krumm 2013, p. 364 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Koenig, in von Mangoldt et al. (2010), Art. 25, para 20 et seq.; Cremer 2013a, para 10–18; Geiger 2002, p. 164 et seq.

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 et seqq.).

  7. 7.

    Of 23 May 1969, in force by 27 January 1980 (BGBl. 1985 II, p. 926).

  8. 8.

    See, extensively, Starck 2006a, p. 76 et seqq. = Starck 2006b, p. 85 et seqq.

  9. 9.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 (Order of 14 October 2004) – Görgülü (in BVerfGE 111, 307 [317]), with reference to 2 BvR 589/79, 2 BvR 740/81, 2 BvR 284/85 (Order of 26 March 1987) – presumption of innocence (in BVerfGE 74, 358 [370]); German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1462/87 (Order of 14 November 1990) – condition of probation (in BVerfGE 83, 119 [128]).

  10. 10.

    Frowein 1992, para 7, 24 et seq.

  11. 11.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvL 20/99, 1 BvR 933/01 (Judgment of 29 January 2003) – right of custody (in BVerfGE 107, 150 [169 et seq.]).

  12. 12.

    Appl. No. 22028/04 Zaunegger v. Germany (ECtHR 3 December 2009).

  13. 13.

    See the list in German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 420/09 (Order of 21 July 2010) – joint custody (in BVerfGE 127, 132 [139 et seq.]).

  14. 14.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 420/09 (Order of 21 July 2010) – joint custody (in BVerfGE 127, 132 [145 et seq.]).

  15. 15.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 420/09 (Order of 21 July 2010) – joint custody (in BVerfGE 127, 132 [146–162]).

  16. 16.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 205/58 (Judgment of 29 July 1959) (in BVerfGE 10, 59 [66]); 1 BvR 636/68 (Decision of 4 May 1971) – Spanier‐Entscheidung (in BVerfGE 31, 58 [82]); 1 BvR 16/72 (Order of 11 October 1978) – Transsexueller (in BVerfGE 49, 286 [300]); 1 BvL 136/78, 1 BvR 890/77, 1 BvR 1300/78, 1 BvR 1440/78, 1 BvR 32/79 (Judgment of 28 February 1980) – Ehescheidung (in BVerfGE 53, 224 [245]); 2 BvL 27/81 (Order of 8 March 1983) (in BVerfGE 63, 323 [330]); 1 BvF 1/01, 1 BvF 2/01 (Judgment of 17 July 2002) – gleichgeschlechtliche Lebenspartnerschaft (in BVerfGE 105, 313 [345]); 2 BvR 1397/09 (Order of 19 June 2012) – Lebenspartnerschaft Beamter (in BVerfGE 131, 239 [259]); 2 BvR 909/06 (Order of 7 May 2013) para 86 – Ehegattensplitting (in BVerfGE 133, 377 et seqq.).

  17. 17.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvL 27/81 (Order of 8 March 1983) (in BVerfGE 63, 323 [330]).

  18. 18.

    Las normas relativas a los derechos fundamentales y a las libertadas que la Constitución reconoce se interpretarán de conformidad con la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y los tradados y acuerdos internationales sobre las mismas materias ratificados por España.

  19. 19.

    They read as follows: (2) “The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.” (3) “Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”.

  20. 20.

    Cremer 2013b, para 135 et seq.

  21. 21.

    See Polakiewicz 2013, p. 472 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Opinion 2/13, Accession to the ECHR (CJEU 18 December 2014).

  23. 23.

    Vogel 1964.

  24. 24.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) – Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155 [183–188]); 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [355]); 2 BvE 13/13 et al. (Order of 14 January 2014) para 48 (in BVerfGE 134, 366).

  25. 25.

    Classen, in von Mangoldt et al. (2010), Art. 24, para 9 et seq.

  26. 26.

    See Starck, in von Mangoldt et al. (2010), preamble, para 40 et seq.

  27. 27.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/08, 2 BvR 1259/08, 2 BvR 182/09 (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [349]); in settled case‐law see German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 687/85 (Order of 8 April 1987) – Kloppenburg (in BVerfGE 75, 223 [242]); 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) – Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155 [200]) (supported by the will of the Member States). See also Badura 1995, p. 116.

  28. 28.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [339 et seq.]).

  29. 29.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267).

  30. 30.

    Cited from Ley 2000, p. 165.

  31. 31.

    Ipsen 1972, p. 101; Ipsen 1992, para 19; Denninger 2000, p. 1125; Kokott 2002, p. 21 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Dreier 1988, Col. 1208; Everling 1993, p. 942 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Ipsen 1992, para 19; Schönberger 2004, p. 104, et seq. on the basis of the theory of federation by Schmitt 1928 p. 363, 372 et seq., who presumes a “substantial equality” and an “ontological conformity” of the Member States (p. 376); Schmitt has, in the course of his remarks, the German Reich, a federal state, in mind, which was founded in 1871; further particulars on references in Starck 2005, p. 722 et seq. (footnotes 36–38).

  34. 34.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [349 et seq.]); Classen, in von Mangoldt et al. (2010), Art. 23, para 3; differently Pernice, in Dreier (2006), Art. 23 para 36 (with further annotations).

  35. 35.

    See Art. 88‐1 of the French Constitution.

  36. 36.

    Rights of decision‐making, Chapter X § 5 Swedish Constitution.

  37. 37.

    Steinberger 1991, p. 16 et seq.; Schmitz 2001b, p. 237 et seq.; Hillgruber 2002, p. 1077 et seq.; Hillgruber 2004, para 61–74; Randelzhofer 2004, para 33 et seq.

  38. 38.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [350]): The steps of integration have to be limited in subject through the pact of tranfer and in principle revocable.

  39. 39.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [346]).

  40. 40.

    Emphasis added. German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [347]), also to the following.

  41. 41.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 13/13 et al. (Order of 14 January 2014) para 27 (in BVerfGE 134, 366).

  42. 42.

    To this a chain of judgments: German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1107/77, 2 BvR 1124/77, 2 BvR 195/79 (Order of 23 June 1981) – Eurocontrol I (in BVerfGE 58, 1 [37]); 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) – Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155 [187, 192, 199]); 2 BvE 6/99 (Judgment of 22 November 2001) – NATO Strategy (in BVerfGE 104, 151 [210]); 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [349]); 2 BvE 6/12 et al. (Judgment of 12 September 2012) – ESM, fiscal compact (in BVerfGE 132, 195 [238 et seq.]).

  43. 43.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [351]).

  44. 44.

    See with further particulars Walter 2009, p. 258 et seq.; Streinz 2008, para 164, 566.

  45. 45.

    Potacs 2009, p. 474 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Gärditz & Hillgruber 2009, p. 877.

  47. 47.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [394]), subsequent to Oppermann 2005, para 68.

  48. 48.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [395]).

  49. 49.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1107/77, 2 BvR 1124/77, 2 BvR 195/79 (Order of 23 June 1981) – Eurocontrol I (in BVerfGE 58, 1 [30 et seq.]); 2 BvR 687/85 (Order of 8 April 1987) – Kloppenburg (in BVerfGE 75, 223 [235, 242]); 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) – Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155 [188]) (“ausbrechender Rechtsakt” [legal instrument transgressing the limits]).

  50. 50.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 687/85 (Order of 8 April 1987) – Kloppenburg (in BVerfGE 75, 223 [242]).

  51. 51.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [354]), with reference to 2 BvR 2236/04 (Judgment of 18 July 2005) – European arrest warrant (in BVerfGE 113, 273 [296]); also for significant and stark transgressions of competence Kokott 1994, p. 233; Isensee 1997, p. 1255 et seq.; different view Schmitz 2001b, p. 285 et. seq., according to which the constitutional law of the Member States is subjected to the decisions of the European Court of Justice without limitations.

  52. 52.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2661/06 (Order of 6 July 2010) – Honeywell (in BVerfGE 126, 286 [302 et seqq.]), also to the following.

  53. 53.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2661/06 (Order of 6 July 2010) – Honeywell (in BVerfGE 126, 286 [306]).

  54. 54.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) – Lissabon‐Vertrag (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [354 et. seq.]).

  55. 55.

    Case 8/74, Dassonville (ECJ 11 July 1974); Case 107/83, Klopp (ECJ 12 July 1984); Case C‐55/94, Gebhard (ECJ 30 November 1995).

  56. 56.

    Case C‐55/94, Gebhard (ECJ 30 November 1995) para 37.

  57. 57.

    Examples in Starck 2007, p. 17 et seq., 40 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Case 178/84, Reinheitsgebot (ECJ 12 March 1987).

  59. 59.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvL 52/71 (Order of 29 May 1974) – Solange I (in BVerfGE 37, 271 [280 et seq.]); 2 BvR 1107/77, 2 BvR 1124/77, 2 BvR 195/79 (Order of 23 June 1981) – Eurocontrol I (in BVerfGE 58, 1 [30 et seq.]); 2 BvR 197/83 (Order of 22 October 1986) – Solange II (in BVerfGE 73, 339 [376]); 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) – Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155 [174 et seq.]).

  60. 60.

    Cf. Rengeling 1993.

  61. 61.

    Schmitz 2001a, p. 833 et seq.

References

  • Badura, P. (1995). Supranationalität und Bundesstaatlichkeit durch Rangordnung des Rechts. In C. Starck (Ed.), Rangordnung der Gesetze (pp. 107–122). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer, H. J. (2013a). Allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts 3rd edn. vol. XI Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer, H. J. (2013b). Entscheidung und Entscheidungswirkung. In O. Dörr, R. Grote & T. Marauhn (Eds.), EMRK/GG – Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz (2nd edn. vol. II, p. 2053–2147). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denninger, E. (2000). Vom Ende nationalstaatlicher Souveränität in Europa. Juristenzeitung, vol. 55, 1121–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, H. (1988). Souveränität. In Görres-Gesellschaft (Ed.), Staatslexikon vol. IV Freiburg i. Br.: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, H. (2006). Grundgesetz Kommentar (2nd edn.). vol. II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling, U. (1993). Überlegungen zur Struktur der Europäischen Union und zum neuen Europaartikel des Grundgesetzes. DVBl, vol. 108, 936–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein, J. A. (1992). Übernationale Menschenrechtsgewährleistungen und nationale Staatsgewalt. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts vol. VII Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz, K. F., & Hillgruber, C. (2009). Volkssouveränität und Demokratie ernst genommen. Zum Lissabon-Urteil des BVerfG. JZ, vol. 64, 872–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. (2002). Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht (3rd edn.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillgruber, C. (2002). Souveränität – Verteidigung eines Rechtsbegriffs. JZ, vol. 57, 1072–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillgruber, C. (2004). Der Nationalstaat in übernationaler Verflechtung. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts 3rd edn. vol. II Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H.-P. (1972). Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H.-P. (1992). Deutschland in den Europäischen Gemeinschaften. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts vol. VII Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isensee, J. (1997). Vorrang des Europarechts und deutsches Verfassungsvorbehalte. In J. Burmeister (Ed.), Verfassungsstaatlichkeit: Festschrift für Klaus Stern zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 1239–1268). Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, W. et al. (Ed.). (2009). Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz. Loose leaf. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott, J. (1994). Deutschland im Rahmen der Europäischen Union. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 119, 207–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott, J. (2002). Die Staatsrechtslehre und die Veränderung ihres Gegenstandes. Konsequenzen von Europäisierung und Internationalisierung. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, 63, 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumm, M. (2013). Legislativer Völkervertragsbruch im demokratischen Rechtsstaat. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 138, 363–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ley, I. (2000). Brünn betreibt die Parlamentarisierung des Primärrechts. JZ, vol. 55, 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mangoldt, H., Klein, H. H., & Starck, C. (Eds.). (2010). Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (6th edn.). Munich: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, T. (2005). Europarecht (3rd edn.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polakiewicz, J. (2013). Der Abkommensentwurf über den Beitritt der Europäischen Union zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. EuGRZ, vol. 40, 472–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potacs, M. (2009). Effet utile als Auslegungsgrundsatz. EuR, vol. 44, 465–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randelzhofer, A. (2004). Staatsgewalt und Souveränität. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts 3rd edn. vol. II Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengeling, H.-W. (1993). Grundrechtsschutz in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. München: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (1928). Verfassungslehre. Munich/Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, T. (2001a). Die EU-Grundrechtscharta aus grundrechtsdogmatischer und grundrechtstheoretischer Sicht. JZ, vol. 56, 833–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, T. (2001b). Integration in der supranationalen Union: das europäische Organisationsmodell einer prozeßhaften geo-regionalen Integration und seine rechtlichen und staatstheoretischen Implikationen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberger, C. (2004). Die Europäische Union als Bund. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 129, 81–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starck, C. (2005). Allgemeine Staatslehre in Zeiten der Europäischen Union. In K. Dicke et al. (Ed.), Weltinnenrecht. Liber Amicorum Jost Delbrück (pp. 711–726). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck, C. (2006a). Das Caroline-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und seine rechtlichen Konsequenzen. JZ, vol. 61, 76–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck, C. (2006b). Praxis der Verfassungsauslegung II. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck, C. (2007). Rechtliche Bewertung der Niederlassungsfreiheit und des Fremdbesitzverbots im Apothekenrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberger, H. (1991). Der Verfassungsstaat als Glied einer Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, 50, 9–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R. (2008). Europarecht (8th edn.). Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, K. (1964). Die Verfassungsentscheidung des Grundgesetzes für eine internationale Zusammenarbeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, K. (2009). Rechtsfortbildung durch den EuGH. Eine rechtsmethodische Untersuchung ausgehend von der deutschen und französischen Methodenlehre. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Christian Starck

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Christian Starck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Pedro Cruz Villalón

  3. University of Applied Sciences for Administration and Public Management in the State of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany

    Tonio Klein

  4. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Jacques Ziller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Starck, C. (2015). International Law, Law of the European Union and National Constitutional Law. In: Blanke, HJ., Cruz Villalón, P., Klein, T., Ziller, J. (eds) Common European Legal Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation