Domestic Law Goes Global: Legal Traditions and International Courts
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 349-351
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 349-351
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Integrating Regions, S. 58-77
In: The review of international organizations, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 285-308
ISSN: 1559-744X
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 349-351
ISSN: 1541-0986
In: International Studies Quarterly, Band 59, S. 209-222
SSRN
In: International organization, Band 68, Heft 1, S. 77-110
ISSN: 0020-8183
SSRN
Working paper
In: International organization, Band 68, Heft 1, S. 77-110
ISSN: 1531-5088
AbstractDo international court judgments influence the behavior of actors other than the parties to a dispute? Are international courts agents of policy change or do their judgments merely reflect evolving social and political trends? We develop a theory that specifies the conditions under which international courts can use their interpretive discretion to have system-wide effects. We examine the theory in the context of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues by creating a new data set that matches these rulings with laws in all Council of Europe (CoE) member states. We also collect data on LGBT policies unaffected by ECtHR judgments to control for the confounding effect of evolving trends in national policies. We find that ECtHR judgments against one country substantially increase the probability of national-level policy change across Europe. The marginal effects of the judgments are especially high where public acceptance of sexual minorities is low, but where national courts can rely on ECtHR precedents to invalidate domestic laws or where the government in power is not ideologically opposed to LGBT equality. We conclude by exploring the implications of our findings for other international courts.
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: British journal of political science, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 413-439
ISSN: 1469-2112
Why and how do international courts justify decisions with citations to their own case law? We argue that, like domestic review courts, international courts use precedent at least in part to convince "lower" (domestic) courts of the legitimacy of judgements. Several empirical observations are consistent with this view, which are examined through a network analysis of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) citations. First, the Court cites precedent based on the legal issues in the case, not the country of origin. Second, the Court is more careful to embed judgements in its existing case law when the expected value of persuading domestic judges is highest. These findings contribute to a developing literature that suggests international and domestic review courts develop their authority in similar ways. Adapted from the source document.
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: British Journal of Political Science, 2012
SSRN
In: British journal of political science, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 413-439
ISSN: 0007-1234
Why and how do international courts justify decisions with citations to their own case law? We argue . - that, like domestic review courts, international courts use precedent at least in part to convince 'lower' . - (domestic) courts of the legitimacy of judgements. Several empirical observations are consistent with this . - view, which are examined through a network analysis of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) . - citations. First, the Court cites precedent based on the legal issues in the case, not the country of origin. . - Second, the Court is more careful to embed judgements in its existing case law when the expected value of . - persuading domestic judges is highest. These findings contribute to a developing literature that suggests . - international and domestic review courts develop their authority in similar ways. ((British Journal of Political Science/ FUB)
World Affairs Online