The Lisbon Treaty emphasized the importance of subsidiarity control in relation to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The article demonstrates that the types of reasoning national parliaments use to raise subsidiarity objections in the AFSJ depend less on the institutional strength of national parliaments in EU affairs and more on the institutional evolution and material scope of EU proposals. Relying on the AFSJ case, the article shows that national parliaments use a narrow legal interpretation of subsidiarity when the EU legislation threatens Member States' legal traditions and State powers. However, concerns about the respect of national legal diversity are replaced by a more political approach to subsidiarity control when politically sensitive and contentious issues are at stake.

中文翻译：

---

从法律到政治推理：国家议会在自由、安全和正义领域使用理性意见*

《里斯本条约》强调了与自由、安全和正义领域 (AFSJ) 相关的辅助控制的重要性。文章表明，各国议会在 AFSJ 中提出附属性反对意见的推理类型较少取决于各国议会在欧盟事务中的制度力量，而更多地取决于欧盟提案的制度演变和实质性范围。文章以 AFSJ 案为依托，表明当欧盟立法威胁到成员国的法律传统和国家权力时，各国议会对辅助性使用狭义的法律解释。然而，当政治敏感和有争议的问题受到威胁时，对尊重国家法律多样性的担忧被更政治化的子公司控制方法所取代。