In the introduction the basic idea of the book is developed. The power of national and transnational constitutional courts to issue binding rulings interpreting the constitution or an international treaty has been endlessly discussed. What does it mean for democratic governance that nonelected judges influence politics and policies? The authors of this volume, scholars and judges, take a fresh look at this problem. To date, research has concentrated on the legitimacy, or on the effectiveness, or on decision-making methods of constitutional courts. In this volume, by contrast, the authors explore the relationship among these three factors. It is the hypothesis that judicial review allows for a method of reflecting on social integration that differs from the mode of politics and, precisely because of the difference between judicial and political decision-making, can be a resource for democratic governance. Differences of methodology, competencies, communication, and temporality between judicial and political decision-making enable constitutional courts to enhance the discursive level of public debates. Thus, the authors focus on the interaction between courts and the political, legal, and societal landscapes in which these courts operate. The hypothesis is tested in case studies on the role of constitutional courts in processes of political transformation.