Suchergebnisse

This Oxford Handbook provides interdisciplinary perspectives on international adjudication, analysing the proliferation of international courts and tribunals from the perspective of both international law and political science. It presents the different theoretical approaches to these courts, their main functions, and the issues confronting them.

This handbook provides interdisciplinary perspectives on international adjudication, analysing the proliferation of international courts and tribunals from the perspective of both international law and political science. It presents the different theoretical approaches to these courts, their main functions, and the issues confronting them

An article & two responses that discuss the establishment of an interdisciplinary perspective that combines legal theory & political science perspectives are presented. Rather than assert that such an interdisciplinary approach is feasible, Karen J. Alter contends that legal theory & political science perspectives can collaborate but are ultimately incompatible. Specifically, it is claimed that legal theory & political science are concerned with distinct enterprises, eg, whereas legal analysis is largely a normative endeavor, political science is primarily a positivist venture. Additional attention is directed toward discussing the different methodologies & styles of writing used in legal & political science scholarship. A rationale for encouraging collaboration between the two disciplinary approaches is also offered. In response, Renaud Dehousse questions the validity of Alter's contention that legal theory & political science are incompatible. It is subsequently asserted that the European integration movement necessitates scholars from both disciplines to incorporate methods from the other discipline since the European Union combines politics & law. In response, Georg Vanberg emphasizes the importance of Alter's argument yet suggests that legal theorists must dedicate additional attention to questions of empirical testing in comparative studies. Moreover, both legal theorists & political scientists are urged to examine the circumstances that provide authority to principled legal arguments. 28 References. J. W. Parker

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) is an increasingly active and bold adjudicator of human rights. Since acquiring jurisdiction over human rights complaints in 2005, theECOWASCourt has issued numerous decisions condemning human rights violations by the member states of the Economic Community of West African States (Community). Among this Court's path-breaking cases are judgments against Niger for condoning modern forms of slavery and against Nigeria for impeding the right to free basic education for all children. TheECOWASCourt also has broad access and standing rules that permit individuals and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to bypass national courts and file suits directly with the Court. Although the Court is generally careful in the proof that it requires of complainants and in the remedies that it demands of governments, it has not shied away from politically courageous decisions, such as rulings against the Gambia for the torture of journalists and against Nigeria for failing to regulate multinational companies that have degraded the environment of the oil-rich Niger Delta.

An innovative, interdisciplinary and far-reaching examination of the actual reality of international courts, International Court Authority challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional, and international politics. A stellar group of scholars investigate the challenges that international courts face in transforming the formal legal authority conferred by states into an actual authority in fact that is respected by potential litigants, national actors, legal communities, and publics. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen provide a novel framework for conceptualizing international court authority that focuses on the reactions and practices of these key audiences. Eighteen scholars from the disciplines of law, political science and sociology apply this framework to study thirteen international courts operating in Africa, Latin America, and Europe, as well as on a global level. Together the contributors document and explore important and interesting variations in whether the audiences that interact with international courts around the world embrace or reject the rulings of these judicial institutions. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen's authority framework recognizes that international judges can and often do everything they 'should' do to ensure that their rulings possess the gravitas and stature that national courts enjoy. Yet even when imbued with these characteristics, the parties to the dispute, potential future litigants, and the broader set of actors that monitor and respond to the court's activities may fail to acknowledge the rulings as binding or take meaningful steps to modify their behaviour in response to them. For both specific judicial institutions, and more generally, the book documents and explains why most international courts possess de facto authority that is partial, variable, and highly dependent on a range of different audiences and contexts - and thus is highly fragile.

We investigate gender disparities in status construction in American political science, focusing on three questions: 1) Do institutions within the discipline of political science—including departments, APSA, editorial boards, and academic honor societies–reflect or remedy gender disparities that exist in many forms of recognition, including appointments to top leadership and citations? 2) Are institutions with centralized and accountable appointment mechanisms less gender skewed compared to networked and decentralized selection processes where implicit bias may go unchecked? 3) Does leaning in help? Does the effort of women to publish and to claim a seat at leadership tables increase the likelihood that higher-level status positions will follow? We find that the distribution of highest-status positions is still gender skewed, that women are over-represented in positions that involve more service than prestige, that "leaning in" by serving as section chair, on editorial boards, or on academic councils is not necessarily a gateway to higher-status appointments, and that accountability promotes greater gender parity. The study raises questions about the goal of gender parity when it comes to lower-status service, and about the types of contributions our discipline rewards.