Book contents
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 ‘Missing in Action? The Rare Voice of International Courts in Domestic Politics’
- Part I
- Part II
- Index
- References
Part II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 ‘Missing in Action? The Rare Voice of International Courts in Domestic Politics’
- Part I
- Part II
- Index
- References
Summary
What motivates States to commit to international human rights treaties remains an unanswered question in political science. Many tentative explanations for the observed variation in ratification patterns have been proposed; some are based on intrinsic characteristics of the treaties (the substance of the protected rights and the control mechanism); others are tied to external factors (having originated either from pressure of the international community or in the domestic political system). Yet the empirical evidence supporting the proposed hypotheses remains unsatisfactory. We aim to contribute to this discussion by providing a new systematic examination of the commitment practices in two post-communist countries: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. While both countries have experienced similar international development, propelled by the same international incentives and constraints, their internal political experience differs significantly. This case selection allows us to focus on how domestic political factors and treaty characteristics interact to determine commitment behaviour. Building upon an analysis of government’s manifestos and commitment processes in 192 treaties dealing with human rights, we examine whether Czech and Slovak governments claiming to protect certain human rights are more likely to act accordingly and aim to adopt related international human rights commitments.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Courts and Domestic Politics , pp. 179 - 342Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Aust, A. (2013). Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, W. M. (2005). Sovereignty Relinquished? Explaining Commitment to the International Human Rights Covenants, 1966–1999. American Sociological Review, 70, 472–95.Google Scholar
Drzemczewski, A. (1983). European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law. A Comparative Study, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Goodman, R. (2000). Human Rights Treaties, Invalid Reservations, and State Consent. American Journal of International Law, 96, 531–60.Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. (2008). How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. & Tsutsui, K. (2005). Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1373–411.Google Scholar
Hathaway, O. (2007). Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51, 588–621.Google Scholar
Hathaway, O. (2008). International Delegation and State Sovereignty. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 115–49.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D. (2004). Explaining Costly International Institutions. Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 779–804.Google Scholar
Heyns, C. & Viljoen, F. (2001). The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 483–535.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (1999). Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landman, T. (2005). Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Linz, J. J. & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W. et al. (1997). World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–81.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization, 51, 228–9.Google Scholar
Powell, E. J. & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic Judicial Institutions and Human Rights Treaty Violation. International Studies Quarterly, 53, 150–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A. (1992). The Games of Transition. In Mainwaring, S., O’Donnell, G. & Valenzuela, J. S., eds., Issues in Democratic Consolidation. The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 105–153.Google Scholar
Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments. Human Rights Law Review, 9, 397–453.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A. (2000). International Law and State Behaviour: Commitment and Compliance in International Monetary Affairs. American Political Science Review, 9, 819–35.Google Scholar
Šipulová, K., Janovský, J. & Smekal, H. (2015). Veto players and human rights commitments, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Smekal, H. & Šipulová, K. (2014). DH v Czech Republic Six Years Later: On the Power of an International Human Rights Court to Push through Systemic Change. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 3, 288–322.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (2009). On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court, digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/71.Google Scholar
Tomuschat, C. (2008). Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Týč, V., Janků, L. & Šipulová, K. (2014). Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: A Case Study on the Practice of Czechoslovakia and Its Successor States. International Community Law Review, 3, 371–98.Google Scholar
Von Beyme, K. (1985). Political Parties in Western Democracies, New York: St. Martin’s Press..Google Scholar
Von Stein, J. (2005). Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance. American Political Science Review, 99, 611–22.Google Scholar
Wotipka, C. M. & Tsutsui, K. (2008). Global Human Rights and State Sovereignty: State Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 1965–2001. Sociological Forum, 23, 724–54.Google Scholar
References
Alter, K. J. (2014). The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics and Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. (2002). Towards a Truly Common Law: Europe as a Laboratory for Legal Pluralism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. (2009). Ordering Pluralism, trans. Norberg, Naomi, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Fontanelli, F. (2013). Criminal Proceedings against Albers. American Journal of International Law, 107, 632–8.Google Scholar
Fox, H. & Webb, P. (2013). The Law of State Immunity, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, R. (1995). Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics, New York: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Koh, H. (1997). Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Yale Law Journal, 106, 2599–659.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2006). From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2012). International Adjudication of Global Public Goods: The Intersection of Substance and Procedure. European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 769–91.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (2014a). Let Not Triepel Triumph – How to Make the Best Out of Sentenza No. 238 of the Italian Constitutional Court for a Global Order. European Journal of International Law Talk! Blog.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (2014b). Immune against Constitutionalism? In Peters, A. et al., eds., Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism, Leiden: Brill, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C., ed. (2004). The Politics of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rochester, J. M. (2006). Between Peril and Promise: The Politics of International Law, Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Russell Bernard, H. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th edn, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (2004). Disaggregated Sovereignty: Towards the Public Accountability of Global Government Networks. Government and Opposition, 39, 159–90.Google Scholar
Sloane, R. (2012). On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility. American Journal of International Law, 106(3), 447–508.Google Scholar
References
Acar, F. (2007). Thoughts on the Committee’s Past, Hopes for Its Future. In Flinterman, C. & Schöpp-Schilling, B., eds., The Circle of Empowerment: Twenty-five Years of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York, pp. 340–5.Google Scholar
Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds. (2000). The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, K.J. (2011). Tipping the Balance: International Courts and the Construction of International and Domestic Politics. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 13, 1–21.Google Scholar
Anagnostou, D. (2010). Does European Human Rights Law Matter? Implementation and Domestic Impact of Strasbourg Court Judgments on Minority-related Policies. The International Journal of Human Rights, 14(5), 721–43.Google Scholar
Anagnostou, D. & Pippidi, M., A. (2014). Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter. The European Journal of International Law, 25(1), 205–27.Google Scholar
Baluarte, D. C. & De Vos, C. M. (2010). From Judgment to Justice. Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions, New York: Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (2014). Analysing the Prisoner Voting Saga and the British Challenge to Strasbourg. Human Rights Law Review, 14(3), 503–40.Google Scholar
Brownlee, G. (2005). UN assumptions biased presumptions, 25 November 2005: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0511/S00387.htm.Google Scholar
Brussels Declaration. (2015). High-level Conference on the ‘Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our Shared Responsibility’, 27 March 2015, http://justice.belgium.be/fr/binaries/Declaration_EN_tcm421-265137.pdf.Google Scholar
Butler, A. & Butler, P. (2005). The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary, Wellington: LexisNexis NZ.Google Scholar
Butler, P. (2011). It takes two to tango. Have they learned their steps? Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Byrnes, A. (2000). Uses and Abuses of the Treaty Reporting Procedure: Hong Kong between Two Systems. In Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–315.Google Scholar
Çali, B. & Wyss, A. (2009). Why Do Democracies Comply with Human Rights Judgments? A Comparative Analysis of the UK, Ireland and Germany. Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
CEDAW (2001). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The Netherlands. UN Doc. A/56/38.Google Scholar
CEDAW (2010). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The Netherlands. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/NLD/CO/5.Google Scholar
Claes, M. & Leenknecht, G. J. (2011). The Netherlands. A Case Of Constitutional Leapfrog. Fundamental Rights Protection under the Constitution, the ECHR and the EU Charter in the Netherlands. In Popelier, P., Van de Heyning, C. & Van Nuffel, P., eds., Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction between the European and the National Courts, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 287–307.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. (1991). The Early Harvest: Domestic Legal Changes Related to the Human Rights Committee and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 13(3), 295–321.Google Scholar
Connors, J. (2000). An Analysis and Evaluation of the System of State Reporting. In Bayefsky, A. F., ed., The UN Human Rights System in the 21st Century, The Hague: Kluwer, pp.3–21.Google Scholar
CRC (1999). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: The Netherlands. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114.Google Scholar
CRC (2003). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: New Zealand. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.216.Google Scholar
Dai, X. (2013). The ‘Compliance Gap’ and the Efficacy of International Human Rights Institutions. In Risse, T., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K., eds., The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
Dimitrijevic, V. (2001). State Reports. In Alfredsson, G. et al., eds., International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms. Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller, The Hague: Kluwer, pp. 185–200.Google Scholar
Donald, A. & Leach, P. (2015). The role of Parliaments Following Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In Hunt, M., Hooper, H. & Yowell, P., eds., Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar
Donald, A. & Leach, P. (2016). Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy and Institutions, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geddis, A. (2011). Prisoner Voting and Rights Deliberation: How New Zealand’s Parliament Failed. New Zealand Law Review, 443–74.Google Scholar
Gerards, J. (2015). The Netherlands. In Popelier, P. & Lambrechts, S., eds., Shifting the Convention System – Counter-Dynamics at the National Level, Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 327–60.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1995). The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 459–89.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making Human Rights a Reality, Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D. & Jacoby, W. (2010). Partial Compliance: A Comparison of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 6(1), 35–85.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. & Slaughter, A. M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107(2), 273–391.Google Scholar
Heyns, C. & Viljoen, F. (2001). The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 483–535.Google Scholar
Hiebert, J. (2006). Parliament and the Human Rights Act: Can the JCHR Help Facilitate a Culture of Rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4, 1–38.Google Scholar
Hiebert, J. & Kelly, J. B. (2015). Parliamentary Bills of Rights. The Experiences of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hillebrecht, C. (2012). Implementing International Human Rights Law at Home: Domestic Politics and the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Review, 13(3), 279–301.Google Scholar
Hillebrecht, C. (2014). Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals. The Problem of Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. (2011). New Zealand. In Shelton, D., ed., International Law and Domestic Legal Systems. Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 429–47.Google Scholar
HRC (2001). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: The Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET.Google Scholar
Hunt, M., Hooper, H. & Yowell, P. (2012). Parliaments and Human Rights. Redressing the Democratic Deficit. Arts & Humanities Research Council. AHRC Public Policy Series No. 5. www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/ahrc-public-policy-series/parliaments-and-human-rights-redressing-the-democratic-deficit/.Google Scholar
Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408.Google Scholar
Husa, J. (2010). Nordic Constitutionalism and European Human Rights. Mixing Oil and Water? Scandinavian Studies in Law, 55, 101–24.Google Scholar
Husa, J. (2011). The Constitution of Finland. A Contextual Analysis, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
ILA (2004). Final Report on the Impact of Findings of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Berlin: Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice.Google Scholar
JCHR (2010). Enhancing Parliament’s Role in Relation to Human Rights Judgments. Fifteenth report of session 2009–10. HL paper 85. Hc 455.Google Scholar
Kälin, W. (2012). Examination of State Reports. In Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G., eds., UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Law and Legitimacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–72.Google Scholar
Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. UNESCO, 89–101.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of Rights. The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G. (2012). Conclusions. In Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G., eds., UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Law and Legitimacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 414–25.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. B. (2011). Judicial and Political Review as Limited Insurance: The Functioning of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in ‘Hard’ Cases. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 49 (3), 295–317.Google Scholar
Krommendijk, J. (2014). The Domestic Impact and Effectiveness of the Process of State Reporting under UN Human Rights Treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. Paper-Pushing or Policy Prompting? Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Krommendijk, J. (2015). The Domestic Effectiveness of International Human Rights Monitoring in Established Democracies. The Case of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Review of International Organisations, 10 (4), 489–512.Google Scholar
Lavapuro, J., Ojanen, T. & Scheinin, M. (2011). Rights-based Constitutionalism in Finland and the Development of Pluralist Constitutional Review, I-CON, 9 (2), 505–31.Google Scholar
Leblanc, L., Huibregtse, A. et al. (2010). Compliance with the Reporting Requirements of Human Rights Conventions. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(5), 789–807.Google Scholar
Lupu, Y. (2015). Legislative Veto Players and the Effects of International Human Rights Agreements. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3), 578–94.Google Scholar
Maori Party (2007). Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/NZL/INT_CERD_NGO_NZL_71_9833_E.doc.Google Scholar
Martin, L. L. (2013). Against Compliance. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Synthesizing Insights from International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 591–610.Google Scholar
McQuigg, R. J. A. (2007). The Responses of States to the Comments of the CEDAW Committee on Domestic Violence. The International Journal of Human Rights, 11(4), 461–79.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1995). Explaining International Human Rights Regimes: Liberal Theory and Western Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 1(2), 157–89.Google Scholar
MultiRights (2015). The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2005). Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 925–53.Google Scholar
Niemi, H. (2003). National Implementation of Findings by United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies: A Comparative Study. Research Reports Åbo Akademi University, 20.Google Scholar
O’Flaherty, M. (2006). The Concluding Observations of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Human Rights Law Review, 6 (1), 27–52.Google Scholar
OHCHR (2006). The Concept Paper on the High Commissioner’s Proposal for a Unified Standing Treaty Body, UN Doc. HRI/MC/2006/2.Google Scholar
Ojanen, T. (2012). The Europeanization of Finnish law. Observations on the Transformations of the Finnish Scene of Constitutionalism. In Nuotio, K., Melander, S. & Huomo-Kettunen, M., eds., Introduction to Finnish Law and Legal Culture, Helsinki: Forum Iuris, pp. 97–110.Google Scholar
Oomen, B. (2013). The Rights for Others: The Contested Homecoming of Human Rights in the Netherlands. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 31 (1), 41–73.Google Scholar
Pesonen, P. & Riihinen, O. (2002). Dynamic Finland. The Political System and the Welfare State, Tampere: Tammer-Paino Oy.Google Scholar
Pillay, N. (2012). Strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body system. A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/HRTD/docs/HCReportTBStrengthening.pdf.Google Scholar
Pourgourides, C. (2010). Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Parliamentary Assembly. AS/Jur (2010) 36.Google Scholar
Pownews (2013). Europa beticht Nederland van discriminatie. 15 oktober 2013. www.powned.tv/uitzendinggemist/2013/10/pownews_472.html.Google Scholar
Radio New Zealand (2012). The United Nations Has Criticised New Zealand’s Proposed Welfare Reforms for Breaching Human Rights, 22 May 2012: www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/106441/un-critical-of-nz-welfare-reforms.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2000). Compliance and Effectiveness in International Regulatory Cooperation. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 32, 387–440.Google Scholar
Rieter, E. (2012). Het EHRM ontlasten: de rol van de nationale parlementen bij het toezicht op de naleving van het EVRM. In Gerards, J. & Terlouw, A., eds., Amici Curiae. Adviezen aan het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 221–30.Google Scholar
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K., eds. (1999). The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosas, A. (2001). Finland. In Blackburn, R. & Polakiewicz, J., eds., Fundamental Rights in Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights and Its Member States, 1950–2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–312.Google Scholar
Rutte, M. (2010). Knok voor vrijheid. De staat moet de baas zijn, NRC Handelsblad, 31 May 2010, 6.Google Scholar
Saul, M. (2015). Should the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Quality of Domestic Parliamentary Processes? Paper presented at The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G., Bayefsky, A. F. & Rodley, N. (1997). Does the United Nations Human Rights Program Make a Difference? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 461–75.Google Scholar
Semb, A. J. (2012). Why (Not) Commit? Norway, Sweden and Finland and the ILO Convention 169. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 30(2), 122–47.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for Human Rights. International Law in Domestic politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smits-Baauw, G. & Van Os, C. (2007). Geen Kind in de Cel. ‘Het voelt niet recht’. Tijdschrift voor de Rechten van het Kind, 17(4), 2–5.Google Scholar
Spekman, H. (2011). Email from Hans Spekman to author of 28 May 2011 and email from Barbara Oomen of 14 June 2011.Google Scholar
Squatrito, T. (2015). Domestic Legislatures and International Human Rights Law: Legislating on Religious Symbols in Europe. Paper presented at The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. J. (2000). Individual Claims in a World of Massive Violations: What Role for the Human Rights Committee. In Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–53.Google Scholar
Sverdrup, U. (2004). Compliance and Conflict Management in the European Union: Nordic Exceptionalism. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (1), 23–43.Google Scholar
Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2005). Compared to What? Judicial Activism and New Zealand’s Parliament. New Zealand Law Journal, 441–5.Google Scholar
Wood, B., Hassall, I. et al. (2008). Unreasonable Force. New Zealand’s Journey towards Banning the Physical Punishment of Children, Wellington: Save the Children.Google Scholar
Zwingel, S. (2005). How Do International Women’s Rights Norms Become Effective in Domestic Contexts? An Analysis of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), https://d-nb.info/97814287X/34.Google Scholar
References
Aemisegger, H. (2014). Die Bedeutung der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts zur EMRK für die Kantone. In Besson, S. & Belser, E. M., eds., La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et les cantons – Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und die Kantone, Journée BENEFRI de droit européen de l’Institut de droit européen – BENEFRI-Tagung im Europarecht des Instituts für Europarecht, Geneva; Zurich; Basel: Schulthess, pp. 111–30.Google Scholar
Aemisegger, H. (2012). Probleme bei der Umsetzung der EMRK durch die Schweiz. In Rüssli, M., Markus, J. Hänni & Häggi Furrer, R., eds., Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht auf vier Ebenen – Festschrift für Tobias Jaag. Zurich; Basel; Geneva: Schulthess, pp. 581–97.Google Scholar
Aemisegger, H. (2010). Zur Umsetzung der EMRK in der Schweiz. In Breitenmoser, S. & Ehrenzeller, B., eds., EMRK und die Schweiz – La CEDH et la Suisse, St. Gallen: Institut für Rechtswissenschaft, pp. 43–105.Google Scholar
Amos, M. (2012). The Dialogue between United Kingdom Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61, 557–84.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, J. (2012a). The Idea of ‘Rules’ in the Sources of International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 84, 103–30.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, J. (2012b). The Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts: Domestic Judges as Architects of the Consistency of the International Legal Order. In Fauchald, O. K. & Nollkaemper, A., eds., The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law, Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing, pp. 141–65.Google Scholar
Aust, H. P. & Nolte, G., eds. (2016). The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts – Uniformity, Diversity, Convergence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aust, H. P. & Nolte, G., Rodiles, A. & Staubach, P. (2014). Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation. Leiden Journal of International Law, 27, 75–112.Google Scholar
Bayer, W. F. (1955). Auslegung und Ergänzung international vereinheitlichter Normen durch staatliche Gerichte. Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 20, 603–42.Google Scholar
Belser, E. M. & Besson, S., eds. (2014). La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et les cantons – Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und die Kantone, Journée BENEFRI de droit européen de l’Institut de droit européen – BENEFRI-Tagung im Europarecht des Instituts für Europarecht, Geneva, Zurich; Basel: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Belser, E. M. & Oleschak-Pillai, R. (2015, on file with author). Engagement of Swiss Courts with International Law: Looking at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and its Ways of Dealing with Conflicts between Domestic Law and International Human Rights Guarantees.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts. American Journal of International Law, 102, 241–74.Google Scholar
Besson, S. & Ammann, O. (2016). La pratique suisse relative à la détermination du droit international coutumier. Cahiers fribourgeois de droit européen, 21.Google Scholar
Besson, S. & Ammann, O. (2014). L’interprétation des accords bilatéraux – Une lecture de droit international. In Epiney, A. & Diezig, S., eds., Annuaire suisse de droit européen 2013/2014 – Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Europarecht 2013/2014, Zurich: Schulthess, pp. 331–58.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2016). Human Rights’ Adjudication as Transnational Adjudication – Putting Domestic Courts as International Law Adjudicators in Perspective. In Binder, C., Footer, M. & Reinisch, A., eds., International Law and …, ESIL Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2014). European Human Rights Pluralism: Notion and Justification. In Maduro, M., Kaarlo, T. & Sankari, S., eds., Transnational Law: Rethinking European Law and Legal Thinking, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170–205.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2011a). European Human Rights, Supranational Judicial Review and Democracy – Thinking Outside the Judicial Box. In Popelier, P., Van de Heyning, C. & Van Nuffel, P., eds., Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 97–145.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2011b). The Erga Omnes Effect of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – What’s in a Name? In Besson, S., ed., La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme après le Protocole 14 – premier bilan et perspectives, Zurich: Schulthess, pp. 125–75.Google Scholar
Besson, S. (2010). Les effets et l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme – Le cas en Suisse. In Breitenmoser, S. & Ehrenzeller, B., eds., EMRK und die Schweiz – La CEDH et la Suisse, St. Gallen: Institut für Rechtswissenschaft, pp. 125–200.Google Scholar
Beusch, M. (2013). Der Einfluss ‘fremder’ Richter – Schweizer Verwaltungsrechtspflege im internationalen Kontext. Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung, 109, 349–58.Google Scholar
Bianchi, A., Peat, D. & Windsor, M., eds. (2015). Interpretation in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, G. (2012). Public International Law – Contemporary Principles and Perspectives. Cheltenham and Northampton, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2013). Legitimacy in International Law and International Relations. In Dunoff, J. L. & Pollack, M. A., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–41.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, J. (2009). Impact on General Principles of Treaty Interpretation. In Kamminga, M. T. & Scheinin, M., eds., The Impact of Human Rights Law on General International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–61.Google Scholar
Carozza, P. G. (1998). Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Notre Dame Law Review, 73, 1217–37.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2011). European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal, 12, 1730–45.Google Scholar
Ernst, W. (2013). Fremde Richter – damals und heute. Aktuelle juristische Praxis, 22, 1374–7.Google Scholar
Fikfak, V. (2014). Judicial Strategies and Their Impact on the Development of the International Rule of Law. University of Cambridge, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No. 25/2014, available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2417200 (shorter version published in Kanetake, M. & Nollkaemper, A., eds., 2015. The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels – Contestation and Deference, Oxford: Hart Publishing).Google Scholar
Føllesdal, A. (2013). Much Ado About Nothing? International Judicial Review of Human Rights in Well Functioning Democracies. In Føllesdal, A., Schaffer, J. K. & Ulfstein, G., eds., The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes – Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 272–99.Google Scholar
Forowicz, M. (2010). The Reception of International Law in the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, T. (1988). Legitimacy in the International System. American Journal of International Law, 82, 705–59.Google Scholar
Gardbaum, S. (2008). Human Rights as International Constitutional Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19, 749–68.Google Scholar
Glaser, A. (2014). Direktdemokratisch legitimierte Grundrechtseinschränkungen. Aktuelle juristische Praxis, 23, 60–76.Google Scholar
Graf Vitzthum, W. (2013). Begriff, Geschichte und Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts. In Graf Vitzthum, W. & Proelß, A., eds., Völkerrecht, 6th edn, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
Greer, S. (2000). The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Files No. 17, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Haefliger, A. & Schürmann, F. (1999). Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und die Schweiz – Die Bedeutung der Konvention für die schweizerische Rechtspraxis, 2nd edn, Bern: Stämpfl.Google Scholar
Hertig Randall, M. (2012). Le dialogue entre le juge suisse et le juge européen. In Bellanger, F., and de Werra, J., eds., Genève au confluent du droit interne et du droit international – Mélanges offerts par la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève à la Société suisse des juristes à l’occasion du congrès 2012, Zurich: Schulthess, pp. 19–59.Google Scholar
Hertig Randall, M. (2010). L’internationalisation de la juridiction constitutionnelle: défis et perspectives. Revue de droit suisse, 129, 221–380.Google Scholar
Hertig Randall, M. & Ruedin, X. (2010). ‘Judicial activism’ et exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 82, 421–43.Google Scholar
Hottelier, M. (2009). Genève – Strasbourg, via Lausanne – retour: réflexions sur le dialogue des juges cantonaux, fédéraux et européens. In Badinter, R., Sauvé, J.-M. & Abraham, R., eds., Le dialogue des juges – Mélanges en l’honneur du Président Bruno Genevois, Paris: Dalloz, pp. 563–80.Google Scholar
Hottelier, M., Mock, H. & Puéchavy, M. (2011). La Suisse devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, 2nd edn, Geneva; Zurich; Basel: Schulthess, pp. 35–43.Google Scholar
International Law Association (2012). Principles on the Engagement of Domestic Courts with International Law – Preliminary Report, available at www.ila-hq.org/en/study-groups/index.cfm/cid/1039.Google Scholar
Iovane, M. (2012). Domestic Courts Should Embrace Sound Interpretative Strategies in the Development of Human-Rights Oriented International Law. In Cassese, A., ed., Realizing Utopia – The Future of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 607–25.Google Scholar
Jacot-Guillarmod, O. (1993). Le juge national face au droit européen, Brussels et al.: Helbing Lichtenhahn and Bruylant.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Müller, A. (2012). Das Zusammenspiel von Bundesgericht und EGMR analysiert aus dem Blickwinkel der Subsidiarität. Justice – Justiz – Giustizia, 8.Google Scholar
Knop, K. (2000). Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 501–35.Google Scholar
Knuchel, S. (2015). Ius Cogens: Identification and Enforcement of Peremptory Norms, Geneva; Basel; Zurich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Letsas, G. (2007). A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Letsas, G. (2004). The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law, 15, 279–305.Google Scholar
Mahoney, P. (1990). Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Human Rights Law Journal, 11, 57–89.Google Scholar
Marschik, A. (1998). Too Much Order? The Impact of Special Secondary Norms on the Unity and Efficacy of the International Legal System. European Journal of International Law, 9, 212–39.Google Scholar
Moeckli, D. (2011). Of Minarets and Foreign Criminals: Swiss Direct Democracy and Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 11, 774–94.Google Scholar
Moremen, P. (2006). National Court Decisions as State Practice: A Transnational Judicial Dialogue? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 32, 259–309.Google Scholar
Mowbray, A. (2005). The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 5, 57–79.Google Scholar
Neumann, T. & Peters, A. (2013). Switzerland. In Reinisch, A., ed., The Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations in Domestic Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–74.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2014). Conversations among Courts – Domestic and International Adjudicators. In Romano, C., Alter, K. & Shany, Y., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 523–49.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2011a). National Courts and the International Rule of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2011b). The Power of Secondary Rules to Connect the International and National Legal Orders. In Broude, T. & Shany, Y., eds., Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–67.Google Scholar
Pellet, A. (2012). Article 38. In Zimmermann, A. et al., eds., The Statute of the International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 731–870.Google Scholar
Popovic, D. (2008). Prevailing of Judicial Activism over Self-Restraint in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Creighton Law Review, 42, 361–96.Google Scholar
Rainey, B., Wicks, E. & Ovey, C. (2014). Interpreting the Convention. In Jacobs, White and Ovey – The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
Rau, S. & Skinner, B. (2016). Das sind die härtesten Asylrichter der Schweiz, Tagesanzeiger, 8 October 2016, available at blog.tagesanzeiger.ch/datenblog/index.php/12556/je-nach-richter-dreimal-hoehere-erfolgschancen.Google Scholar
Reinisch, A. & Bachmayer, P. (2015). Customary International Law in Austrian Courts, available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2289788.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. (2011). Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 60, 57–92.Google Scholar
de Salvia, M. (2003). Compendium de la CEDH – Les principes directeurs de la jurisprudence relative à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, vol. I, Jurisprudence 1960 à 2002. Kehl et al.: Engel.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2001). The Dilemma of Ignorance: PGA Tour, Inc. v Casey Martin. Supreme Court Review, 267–97.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2009). National Courts as International Actors: Jurisdictional Implications. federalismi.it, available at www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?artid=13810.Google Scholar
Sicilianos, L. (2014). The Involvement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Implementation of Its Judgments: Recent Developments under Article 46 ECHR. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 32, 235–62.Google Scholar
Thirlway, H. (2015). The Sources of International Law. In Evans, M. D., ed., International Law, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar
Thurnherr, D. (2008). The Reception Process in Austria and Switzerland. In Keller, H. & Stone Sweet, A., eds., A Europe of Rights – The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 311–91.Google Scholar
Tulkens, F. (2012). Conference presentation, in European Court of Human Rights, ed., Dialogue entre juges – Comment assurer une plus grande implication des juridictions nationales dans le système de la Convention? Actes du séminaire du 27 janvier 2012. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 6–10, available at www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2012_FRA.pdf.Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, A. (2016). Judicial Dialogue as a Means of Interpretation. In Aust, H. P. & Nolte, G., eds., The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts – Uniformity, Diversity, Convergence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 72–95.Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, A. (2011). Disobeying the Security Council – Countermeasures against Wrongful Sanctions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, A. & Tams, C. (2013). Introduction: Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of International Law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 26, 531–40.Google Scholar
Villiger, M. (1999). Handbuch der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK), 2nd edn, Zurich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Weill, S. (2014). The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziemele, I. (2012). Other Rules of International Law and the European Court of Human Rights: A Question of a Simple Collateral Benefit? In Spielmann, D., Tsirli, M. & Panayotis, V., eds., La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, un instrument vivant – The European Convention on Human Rights, A Living Instrument, Mélanges en l’honneur de Christos L. Rozakis – Essays in Honour of Christos L. Rozakis, Brussels: Bruylant, pp. 741–58.Google Scholar
References
Barak, A. (2002). Some Reflections on the Israeli Legal System and Its Judiciary. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 6.Google Scholar
Barak-Erez, D. (2004). The International Law of Human Rights and Constitutional Law: A Case Study of an Expanding Dialogue. International Journal of Constitutional Law, (2), 611–632.Google Scholar
Bedjaoui, M. (1995). The Reception by National Courts of Decisions of International Tribunals. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 28, 45–64.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (1993). Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts. European Journal of International Law, 4, 159–83.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts. American Journal of International Law, 102, 241–74.Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, E. (2009). The Effect of the ECHR on the Italian Legal Order: Direct Effect and Supremacy. The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online, 19, 171–185.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (2010). Strategies of Domestic Justice: Domestic Courts Response to International Criticism. In Stern, Y., ed., My Justice, Your Justice – Justice across Cultures, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center/Israel Democracy Institute, p. 483 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Elias, O. (2000). General International Law in the European Court of Justice: From Hypothesis to Reality? Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 31, 3–34.Google Scholar
ILA International Human Rights Law and Practice Committee. (2004). Final Report on the Impact of Findings of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies.Google Scholar
Grady Schwartz, O. (2011). International Law in Domestic Judges’ Decisions: The Relationship between Broad Role-Perception and a Strong Internationalist Inclination. Tel-Aviv University Law Review, 34, 475–523 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Gross, M., Haris, R. & Shachar, Y. (1996). References Patterns of the Supreme Court in Israel – Quantitative Analysis. Mishpatim, 26, 119–217 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Jabareen, H. (2008). The Rise of Transnational Lawyering for Human Rights. Law and Social Change, 1, 137–51 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Jarmul, H. D. (1995). The Effect of Decisions of Regional Human Rights Tribunals on National Courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 28, 311–66.Google Scholar
Kanetake, M. (2014). The Interfaces between the National and International Rule of Law: A Framework Paper. Social Science Research Network, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2480965, papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2480965 (accessed 11 April 2015).Google Scholar
Knop, K. (1999). Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 501–35.Google Scholar
Kretzmer, D. (2009). International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel. In Sloss, D., ed., The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–325.Google Scholar
Krisch, N. (2008). The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law. Modern Law Review, 71, 183–216.Google Scholar
Navot, S. (2013). Israel: Creating a Constitution – The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court (1994–2010). In Groppie, T. & Ponthoreau, M., eds., The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges, London: Hart, pp. 129–54.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2009). The Effect of the ECHR and Judgments of the ECtHR on National Law – Comments on the Paper of Enzo Cannizzaro. The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online, 19, 189–97.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. (2014). Conversations among Courts: Domestic and International Adjudiators. In Romano, C. et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 523–49.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. & van Alebeek, R. (2012). The Legal Status of Decisions by Human Rights Treaty Bodies in National Law. In Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G., eds., Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 356–413.Google Scholar
Porat, I. (2013). The Use of Foreign Law in Israeli Constitutional Adjudication. In Sapir, G. et al., eds., Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making, Oxford: Hart, pp. 151–72.Google Scholar
Schreuer, C. H. (1974). The Authority of International Judicial Practice in Domestic Courts. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 23, 681.Google Scholar
Shachar, Y. (2008). The Reference Practices of the Israeli Supreme Court 1950–2004. Hapraklit, 50, 29–69 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Reilly, D. M. & Ordonez, S. (1995). Effect of the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice on National Courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 28, 435–84.Google Scholar
Ronen, Y. (2013a). Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma – but Beware the Background Noise: Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of the Law on the Conduct of Hostilities. Leiden Journal of International Law, 26, 591–614.Google Scholar
Ronen, Y. (2013b). Blind in Their Own Cause: The Military Courts in the West Bank. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2, 738–62.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2000). The Politics and Incentives of Legal Transplantation. In Nye, J. S. & Donahue, J. D., eds., Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 253–70.Google Scholar
Schreuer, C. H. (1974). The Authority of International Judicial Practice in Domestic Courts. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 23, 681–708.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2005). Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law? European Journal of International Law, 16, 907–40.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (2003). A Global Community of Courts. Harvard International Law Journal, 44, 191–220.Google Scholar
Trapani, A. (2011). Assessing the Impact of the International Ad-Hoc Tribunals on the Domestic Courts of the Former Yugoslavia, DOMAC/11, www.domac.is/media/domac/Domac-11-BAlkan-AT-Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Von Bogdandy, A. & Venzke, I. (2012). In Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and Its Democratic Justification. European Journal of International Law, 23, 7–41.Google Scholar
Von Bogdandy, A. & Venzke, I. (2014). The Spell of Precedents: Lawmaking by International Courts and Tribunals. In Romano, C. et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 503–22.Google Scholar
References
Adcock, R. & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–46.Google Scholar
Alter, K. J. (2014). The New Terrain of International Law, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. (2011). Distinguishing Judges: An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Quality in the United States Courts of Appeal. Missouri Law Review, 76(2), 315–85.Google Scholar
Barker, V. (2012). Nordic Exceptionalism Revisited: Explaining the Paradox of a Janus-faced in Theoretical Criminology. Theoretical Criminology, available at http://tcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/20/1362480612468935.full.pdf.Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. (2007). Political Constitutionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, A. (2004). The Nordic Militaries: Forces for Good? In Elliott, L. M. & Cheeseman, G., eds., Forces for Good: Cosmopolitan Militaries in the Twenty-first Century, Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans. Human Rights as Foreign Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, J. & Madsen, M. R. (2011). The End of Virtue? Denmark and the Internationalisation of Human Rights. Nordic Journal of International Law, 80(3), 257–77.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. G. (2014). Theorizing Precedent in International Law. In Bianchi, A., Peat, D. & Windsor, Matthew, eds., Interpretation in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2013). Whose Agents? The Interpretation of International Law in National Courts. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394–420.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. (2006). Sweden: Once a Moral Superpower, Always a Moral Superpower? International Journal, 61(4), 859–908.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fischman, J. B. (2013). Reuniting ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ in Empirical Legal Scholarship. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 162(1), 117–68.Google Scholar
Fon, V. & Parisi, F. (2006). Judicial Precedents in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic Analysis. International Review of Law and Economics 26(1), 519–35.Google Scholar
Fon, V. & Parisi, F. (2015). Judicial Precedents in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic Analysis. International Review of Law and Economics, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 04–15; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07–19. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=534504 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.534504.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, A. & Wind, M. (2009). Nordic Reluctance Towards Judicial Review under Siege. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 27(2), 131–41.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay – From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. L. & Posner, E. A. (2006). The Limits of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gøtze, M. & Palmer Olsen, H. (2011). Restrained Integration of European Case Reports in Danish Legal Information Systems and Culture. Nordic Journal of International Law, 80, 279–94.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. & Slaughter, A. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Transnational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107, 273–392.Google Scholar
Hirschl, R. (2006). Towards Juristocracy, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschl, R. (2011). The Nordic Counternarrative: Democracy, Human Development, and Judicial Review. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(2), 449–69.Google Scholar
Holm Pedersen, L., Bhatti, Y. & Lindskow, K. (2006). Europæiseringen af CO2-reguleringen: En komparativ analyse af årsager og effekter. Tidskriftet Politik, 9(3), 75–86.Google Scholar
Husa, J. (2011). Nordic Constitutionalism and European Human Rights – Mixing Oil and Water? Scandinacvian Studies in Law, 55, 101–24.Google Scholar
Kierulf, A. (2014). Taking Judicial Review Seriously: The Case of Norway, Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Kristensen, P. M. & Wæver, O. (forthcoming). Scandinavian IR – Less Identity, More Influence?Google Scholar
Landes, W. M. & Posner, R. A. (1976). Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 249–307.Google Scholar
Langford, M. & Schaffer, J. K. (2014). The Nordic Human Rights Paradox: Moving beyond Exceptionalism, University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, Research Paper, no. 2013–25. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2275905.Google Scholar
Lupu, Y. & Voten, E. (2011). Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 413–39.Google Scholar
Mak, E. (2012). Reference to Foreign Law in the Supreme Courts of Britain and the Netherlands: Explaining the Development of Judicial Practices. Utrecht Law Review, 8(2), 20–34.Google Scholar
Martinsen, D. S. (2014). Public Administration, Civil Servants and Implementation. In Miles, L. & Wivel, A., eds., Denmark and the European Union, London: Routledge, pp. 189–203.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. P. (1979). Politisk Organisering: Organisationsteoretiske synspunkt på folkestyre og politisk ulikhet, Olso: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries. (2015). Stare decisis. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stare-decisis (accessed 31 August 2015).Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2014). The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 547–64.Google Scholar
Romano, C., Alter, K. J. & Shany, Y., eds. (2013). The Oxford University Press Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rógvi, K. (2013). West-Nordic Constitutional Judicial Review: A Comparative Study of Scandinavian Judicial Review and Judicial Reasoning, Copenhagen: Djøf.Google Scholar
Rytter, J. E. & Wind, M. (2011). In Need of Juristocracy? The Silence of Denmark in the Development of European Legal Norms. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(2), 470–504.Google Scholar
Scheinin, M., ed. (2001). Constitutionalism and the Welfare State – Nordic Perspectives, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. M. (1999–2000). Judicial Globalization. Virginia Journal of International Law, 40(4), 1103–24.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. M. (2003). A Global Community of Courts. Harvard International Law Journal 44(1), 191–219.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1346–60.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403–83.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P. (2008). The Uneven Legal Push for Europe. European Union Politics 9(4), 487–512.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2009). The Uneven Legal Push for Europe. Questioning Variation When National Courts Go to Europe. European Union Politics, 10(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2009). When Parliament Comes First – The Danish Concept of Democracy Meets the European Union. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 27(2), 271–88.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2010). The Nordic, the EU and the Reluctance Towards Supranational Judicial Review. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 1039–63.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2014). Who Is Afraid of European Constitutionalism? The Nordic Distress with Judicial Review and Constitutional Democracy. iCourts Working Paper, 13, 1–20.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2015). The Nordic Resentment to European Constitutionalism. In Franzius, C., Mayer, F. C. & Neyer, J., eds., Modelle des Parlamentarismus im 21, Jarhundret; Berlin: Nomos.Google Scholar
Wind, M. (2016). Do Scandinavian Judges Care about International Law? Nordic Journal of International Law, 85(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
Wind, M. (2017). The Scandinavians – The Foot-dragging Supporters of European Law? In Derlén, M. & Lindholm, J., eds., The Courts of Justice of the European Union: Multidiciplinary Perspectives, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar