Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:54:42.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - ‘Missing in Action? The Rare Voice of International Courts in Domestic Politics’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2018

By
Lisa Conant
Edited by
Marlene Wind
Marlene Wind
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

International courts have proliferated since the mid-twentieth century, but their significance remains contested in academic debates. Constitutionalists contend that the growing interaction between international and national courts exerts a transformative impact on domestic politics, while realists attribute outcomes to the operation of interests and power. Liberals and pluralists expect domestic institutions to mediate the influence of international courts, leading to cross-national variations. I argue that a growing body of empirical research uncovering a wide range of outcomes aligns most consistently with liberal and pluralist expectations. This chapter supports this position by focusing primarily on what should be the ‘easiest’ cases to confirm constitutionalist and realist theories: national courts, European Union (EU) law, and human rights law in Europe and the United States.

Type
Chapter
Information
International Courts and Domestic Politics , pp. 11 - 42
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, K. (1998). Who Are the Masters of the Treaty? International Organization, 52(1), 121–47.Google Scholar
Alter, K. (2001). Establishing the Supremacy of European Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, K. (2012). The Global Spread of European Style International Courts. West European Politics, 35(1), 135–54.Google Scholar
Alter, K. & Helfer, L. (2009). The Andean Tribunal of Justice and Its Interlocutors. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 41(4), 871–930.Google Scholar
Alter, K. & Helfer, L. & Meunier, S. (1994). Judicial Politics in the European Community. Comparative Political Studies, 39(4), 535–61.Google Scholar
Alter, K. & Helfer, L. & Meunier, S. & Vargas, J. (2000). Explaining Variation in the Use of European Litigation Strategies. Comparative Political Studies, 33(4), 452–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altschuller, S., Lehr, A. & Orsmond, A. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility. International Lawyer, 45(1), 179–90.Google Scholar
Banner, F., Miller, K. & Provine, D. M. (2010). Foreign Law in American Jurisprudence. In Jackson, D., Tolley, M. & Volcansek, M., eds., Globalizing Justice, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (1993). Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law. European Journal of International Law, 4, 159–183.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming Democracy. American Journal of International Law, 102, 241–74.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. & Downs, G. (2009). National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law. European Journal of International Law, 20(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, P. (2012). Global Legal Pluralism, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boom, S. (1995). The European Union after the Maastricht Decision. American Journal of Comparative Law, 43(2), 177–226.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. (2006). Participation through Law Enforcement. Comparative Political Studies, 39(1), 128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, C. & Gulati, G. M. (2010). Withdrawing from International Custom. Yale Law Journal, 120(2), 202–75.Google Scholar
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2017). ‘Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court’s jurisdiction,’ August 23.Google Scholar
Burley, A. (1989). The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789. American Journal of International Law, 83, 461–93.Google Scholar
Burley, A. & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the Court. International Organization, 47(1), 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxbaum, H. (2005–2006). Transnational Regulatory Litigation. Virginia Journal of International Law, 46, 251–318.Google Scholar
Carnota, W. (2010). Judicial Globalization. In Jackson, D., Tolley, M. & Volcansek, M., eds., Globalizing Justice, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 255–66.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2000). The Much Ado about Judicial Politics in the United Kingdom. Jean Monnet Working Paper. No. 1/100, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Chander, A. (2013). Unshackling Foreign Corporations. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 829–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichowski, R. (2007). The European Court and Civil Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cichowski, R. (2014). ‘Legal Mobilization and Human Rights Governance’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 28–31 August.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2002). Justice Contained, Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2013). Whose Agents? In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394–420.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2014a). ‘Stampede for justice?’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 28–31 August.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2014b). Compelling Criteria? Journal of European Public Policy, 21(5), 713–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, L. (2016). Who Files Suit? Law & Policy, 38(4), 280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservatives. (2015). ‘The Conservative Party Manifesto’, available at https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf (accessed August 2017).Google Scholar
Conservatives (2017). ‘The Conservative Party Manifesto’, available at www.conservatives.com/manifesto (accessed August 2017).Google Scholar
Curran, V. & Sloss, D. (2013). Reviving Human Rights Litigation after Kiobel. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 858–63.Google Scholar
Dai, X. (2006). Why Comply? International Organization, 59(2), 363–98.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2012). Resisting the European Court of Justice, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Búrca, G. (2010). The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi. Harvard International Law Journal, 51(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
Dodge, W. (2011). Customary International Law in the Supreme Court, 1946–2000. In Sloss, D., Ramsey, M. & Dodge, W., eds., International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–79.Google Scholar
Donovan, D. & Roberts, A. (2006). The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction. American Journal of International Law, 100(1), 142–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, M. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151–69.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. (2008). Less Than Zero. Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, 6, 279–310.Google Scholar
Epp, C. (1998). The Rights Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, R. (1964). The Role of Domestic Courts in the International Legal Order, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Falkner, G. (2013). The JCMS Annual Review Lecture. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51 (Annual Review), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, G. & Treib, O. (2008). Three Worlds of Compliance or Four? Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 293–313.Google Scholar
Flaherty, M. (2006). Judicial Globalization in the Service of Self-Government. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 477–541.Google Scholar
Gabrielidis, A. (2006). Human Rights Begin at Home. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 12, 139–95.Google Scholar
Garrett, G., Kelemen, D. & Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 149–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeroms, S. (2004). Foreign Law in Civil Litigation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gehring, J. (2009). ‘A Civil Rights Movement for Europe’, in APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.Google Scholar
Gehring, J. (2013). Free Movement for Some. European Journal of Migration and Law, 15(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Goldhaber, M. (2013). Corporate Human Rights Litigation in Non-U.S. Courts. University of California Irvine Law Review, 3, 127–49.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. & Posner, E. (2005). The Limits of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golub, J. (1996). The Politics of Judicial Discretion. West European Politics, (19)2, 360–85.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. & Tsutsui, K. (2007). Justice Lost! Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 407–25.Google Scholar
Harlow, C. & Rawlings, R. (1992). Pressure through Law, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hermanin, C. (2012). Europeanization through Judicial Enforcement? PhD thesis, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
Herzberg, A. (2014). Kiobel and Corporate Complicity. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-41–e-47, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards Juristocracy, Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. & Stephens, B. (2013). International Human Rights Cases under State Law and in State Courts. University of California Irvine Law Review, 3, 9–232.Google Scholar
Hsu, S. & Martin, V. (2015). Four Blackwater Guards sentenced in Iraq Shootings of 31 Unarmed Civilians, Washington Post, April 13, available at www.washingtonpost.com (accessed 10 May 2015).Google Scholar
Jägers, N., Jess, K. & Verschuuren, J. (2014). The Future of Corporate Liability for Extraterritorial Human Rights Abuses. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-36–e-40, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Kaeb, C. & Scheffer, D. (2013). The Paradox of Kiobel Outside the United States. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 852–57.Google Scholar
Kagan, R. (2008). The ‘Non-Americanization’ of European Law. European Political Science, 7, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahler, M. (2000). Conclusion. International Organization, 54(3), 661–83.Google Scholar
Kelemen, R. D. (2003). The EU Rights Revolution. In Börzel, T. & Cichowski, R., eds., The State of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–34.Google Scholar
Kelemen, R. D. (2011). Eurolegalism, Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Knop, K. (2000). Here and There. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 501–35.Google Scholar
Knop, K. (1991). Transnational Public Law Litigation. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2347–402.Google Scholar
Knop, K. (1997). Why Do Nations Obey International Law? The Yale Law Journal, 106(8), 2599–659.Google Scholar
Knop, K. (2004). International Law as Part of Our Law. American Journal of International Law, 98(1), 43–57.Google Scholar
Krisch, N. (2005). International Law in Times of Hegemony. European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 369–408.Google Scholar
Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond Constitutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ku, J. (2011). The Curious Case of Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Statute. Virginia Journal of International Law, 51, 353–96.Google Scholar
Ku, J. (2013). Kiobel and the Surprising Death of Universal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 835–40.Google Scholar
Lejeune, A. (2015). ‘Workplace Discrimination and Access to Domestic Labour Courts in Belgium and Sweden’, Paper presented at the Legal Mobilization in Germany and the European Union DAAD workshop, York University, Toronto, Canada, 13 February.Google Scholar
Leval, P. (2013). Distant Genocides. Yale Journal of International Law, 38, 231–51.Google Scholar
Lindseth, P. (2010). Power and Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinez, J. (2003). Towards an International Judicial System. Stanford Law Review, 56(2), 429–529.Google Scholar
Martinsen Singbjerg, D. (2015). An Ever More Powerful Court? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayoral Diaz-Asensio, J. A. (2015). The Politics of Judging EU Law, Madrid: Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Inv.Google Scholar
McCorquodale, R. (2013). Waving not Drowning. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 846–51.Google Scholar
Mohan, M. (2014). The Road to Song Mao. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-30–e-35, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1995). Explaining International Human Rights Regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1(2), 157–89.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes. International Organization, 54(2), 217–52.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2013). Liberal Theories of International Law. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–118.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2002). Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental Commitment? Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 139–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2005). Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 925–53.Google Scholar
Nolan, J., Posner, M. & Labowitz, S. (2014). Beyond Kiobel. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-48–e-54, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Nyikos, S. (2000). The European Courts and National Courts, University of Virginia PhD thesis.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. (2010). The U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Comparative Law in the Construction of Constitutional Rights. In Jackson, D., Tolley, M. & Volcansek, M., eds., Globalizing Justice, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 7–26.Google Scholar
Organization of American States (OAS). 2014. ‘Basic Documents in the Inter-American System’ available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/intro.asp, (accessed 18 August 2014).Google Scholar
Parrish, A. (2014). Kiobel’s Broader Significance. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-19–e-22, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Pollack, M. A. “Learning from EU Law Stories: The European Court and Its Interlocutors Revisited,” in Bill Davies and Fernanda Nicola, eds., EU law Stories: Contextual and Critical Histories of European Jurisprudence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 577–602.Google Scholar
Ramos Romeu, F. (2006). Law and Politics in the Application of EC Law. Common Market Law Review, 43, 395–421.Google Scholar
Ratner, S. (2003). Belgium’s War Crimes Statute. American Journal of International Law, 97(4), 888–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2013). Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–320.Google Scholar
Ruggiero, C. (2002). The European Court of Justice and the German Constitutional Court. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 24(1), 51–80.Google Scholar
Sanger, A. (2014). Corporations and Transnational Litigation. American Journal of International Law Unbound (web exclusive): e-23–e-29, available at asil.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. (2018). The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. (2014). Judicial Europanisation. West European Politics, 37(4), 769–85.Google Scholar
Sedelmeier, U. (2008). After Conditionality. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 806–25.Google Scholar
Serban, M. (2015). ‘Mobilizing the Courts in Post-communist Europe’, Paper presented at the Legal Mobilization in Germany and the European Union DAAD workshop, York University, Toronto, Canada, 13 February.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2004). The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (1993). Public Law and Judicial Politics. In Finifter, A., ed., Political Science, Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, pp. 365–81.Google Scholar
Sikkink, K. (2011). The Justice Cascade, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. (2000). International Law and State Behavior. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 819–35.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for Human Rights, New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (1995). International Law in a World of Liberal States. European Journal of International Law, 6, 503–38.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (2003). A Global Community of Courts, Harvard International Law Journal 44, 191–219.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (2004). A New World Order, Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. & Burke-White, W. (2006). The Future of International Law Is Domestic. Harvard International Law Journal, 47(2), 327–52.Google Scholar
Slepcevic, R. (2009). The Judicial Enforcement of EU Law through National Courts. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3), 378–94.Google Scholar
Soennecken, D. (2013). Extending Hospitality? Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 60, 85–109.Google Scholar
Spiro, P. (2013). Sovereigntism’s Twilight. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 31, 307–22.Google Scholar
Steinbach, A. (2010). The Lisbon Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court. German Law Journal, 11(4), 367–90.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (2002). In the Shadow of Law or Power? International Organization, 56(2), 339–74.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (2004). Judicial Law-making at the WTO. American Journal of International Law, 85(4), 613–45.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (2013). Wanted – Dead or Alive. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 146–72.Google Scholar
Steinhardt, R. (2013). Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent. American Journal of International Law, 107(4), 841–5.Google Scholar
Stephan, P. (1998–1999). The Futility of Unification and Harmonization in International Commercial Law. Virginia Journal of International Law, 39, 743–98.Google Scholar
Stephan, P. (2002). Courts, Tribunals, and Legal Unification. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3(2), 333–52.Google Scholar
Stephens, B. (2002). Translating Filártiga. Yale Journal of International Law, 27(1), 1–57.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. & Brunell, T. (1998). Constructing a Supranational Constitution. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 63–81.Google Scholar
Subotic, J. (2009). Hijacked Justice, Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Teitel, R. (2002). Humanity’s Law. Cornell International Law Journal, 35, 355–87.Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Ramasastry, A. & Taylor, M. (2009). Translating Unocal. George Washington International Law Review, 40, 841–902.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L. (2009). Anti-discrimination Policy Actors and Their Use of Litigation Strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 738–54.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L. (2011). Making Rights a Reality? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L. (2012). Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK. Law & Society Review, 46(3), 523–56.Google Scholar
Vanhala, L. (2016). Legal Mobilization under Neo-corporatist Governance. Journal of Law and Courts, 4(1), 103–30.Google Scholar
Van Waarden, F. & Hildebrand, Y. (2009). From Corporatism to Lawyocracy? Regulation and Governance, 3(3), 197–216.Google Scholar
Warner, C. (2007). The Best System Money Can Buy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Washington Legal Foundation. (2013). Court Vacates Decision Reinstating Suit Alleging Human Rights Violations. Litigation Update, available at wlf.org (accessed July 2014).Google Scholar
Waters, M. (2007). Normativity in the ‘New’ Schools. Yale Journal of International Law, 32, 455–84.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403–83.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1999). The Constitution of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (2008). Editorial: Kadi – Europe’s Medellin? European Journal of International Law, 19(5), 895–96.Google Scholar
Wind, M. (2010). The Nordics, the EU, and Reluctance towards Supranational Judicial Review. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 1039–63.Google Scholar
World Bank (2016). Worldwide Governance Indicators, available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports (accessed 25 April 2016).Google Scholar
Wuerth, I. (2013). Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. American Journal of International Law, 107(3), 601–21.Google Scholar
Whytock, C. (2010). Foreign Law in Domestic Courts. In Jackson, D., Tolley, M. & Volcansek, M., eds., Globalizing Justice, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 45–63.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×