Book contents
- International Judicial Review
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Judicial Review
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Argument from Normative Legitimacy
- 3 The Argument from Systemic Epistemic Superiority
- 4 Why International Courts Improve Deliberation
- 5 Who Should Participate in the Courts’ Proceedings?
- 6 Creating the Right Incentives
- 7 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 February 2020
Book contents
- International Judicial Review
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Judicial Review
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Argument from Normative Legitimacy
- 3 The Argument from Systemic Epistemic Superiority
- 4 Why International Courts Improve Deliberation
- 5 Who Should Participate in the Courts’ Proceedings?
- 6 Creating the Right Incentives
- 7 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Judicial ReviewWhen Should International Courts Intervene?, pp. 143 - 156Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Primary Sources
Ackerman, Bruce & Fishkin, James, Deliberation Day (2004).
Barak, Aharon, Judicial Discretion (1987) (Hebrew).
Barak, Aharon, Purposive Interpretation in Law (2003) (Hebrew).
Bates, Ed, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights – From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights ( 2010 ).CrossRef
Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch – The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (2d ed., 1986).
Bjorge, Eirik, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties ( 2014 ).
von Bogdandy, Armin & Venzke, Ingo, In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication ( 2014 ).CrossRef
Bowring, Bill, The Degradation of the International Legal Order? The Rehabilitation of Law and the Possibility of Politics (2008).CrossRef
Burt, Ronald S., Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital ( 2005 ).
Comparative International Law (Roberts, Anthea et al., eds., 2018).
Conant, Lisa J., Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union ( 2002 ).
Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (2015)CrossRef
Van Dijk, P. & Van Hoof, G. J. H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (3d ed., 1998).
Dinstein, Yoram, International Treaties (1974) (Hebrew).
Dothan, Shai, Reputation and Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts (2015).CrossRef
Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust – A Theory of Judicial Review ( 1980 ).
Fabbrini, Federico, Fundamental Rights in Europe: Challenges and Transformations in a Comparative Perspective ( 2014 ).
Goldsmith, Jack L. & Posner, Eric A., The Limits of International Law (2005).
Gomien, Donna, Harris, David, & Zwaak, Leo, Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter ( 1996 ).
Harris, D. J., O’boyle, M., & Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights ( 1995 ).
Hillebrecht, Courtney, Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals: The Problem of Compliance (2014)CrossRef
Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty – Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (1970).
Hodson, Loveday, NGOs and the Struggle for Human Rights in Europe (2011).
Keynes, John Maynard, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (2008).
Kleffner, Jann K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (2008).CrossRef
Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (2005).CrossRef
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
Lauterpacht, Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court ( 1958 ).
Legg, Andrew, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (2012).CrossRef
Merrills, J. G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights (2d ed.,1993).
Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (1965).
Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities ( 1982 ).
Orakhelashvili, Alexander, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law (2008).CrossRef
Ovey, Clare & White, Robin C. A., Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed., 2006).
Schmidt, Susanne K., The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process: The Shadow of Case Law (2018).CrossRef
Segal, Jeffrey A. & Spaeth, Harold J., The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (2002).CrossRef
Shearer, Ivan. A. Starke’s International Law (11th ed., 1994).
Sikkink, Kathryn, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics ( 2011 ).
Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order ( 2004 ).
Slaughter, Anne-Marie, The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World (2017).
Sunstein, Cass. R. & Hastie, Reid, Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter (2015).
Sweet, Alec Stone, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (2000).
The International Court: Challenges to Achieving Justice and Accountability in the 21st Century (Ellis, Mark S. & Goldstone, Richard J., eds., 2008).
Secondary Sources
Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll, The Brighton Aftermath and the Changing Role of the European Court of Human Rights, 9 J. Int’l Dispute Settlement 223 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, James F., The International Criminal Court and the Prevention of Atrocities: Predicting the Court’s Impact, 54 Vill. L. Rev. 1 (2009).Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., Helfer, Laurence R., & Madsen, Mikael Rask, How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts, 79 L. & Contemp. Prob. 1 (2016).Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. & Vargas, Jeannette, Explaining Variation in the Use of European Litigation Strategies: European Community Law and British Gender Equality Policy, 33 Comp. Pol. Stud. 452 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll, The Differences that Make a Difference: Recent Developments on the Discrimination Grounds and the Margin of Appreciation under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 14 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 647 (2014).Google Scholar
Bassok, Or, Missing in Action: The Human Eye in Constitutions Across Borders in the Struggle against Terrorism 283 (Fabbrini, Federico & Jackson, Vicki, eds., 2016).CrossRef
Bassok, Or & Dotan, Yoav, Solving the Countermajoritarian Difficulty? 11 Int’l J. Conn. Law 13 (2013).Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Exit and Voice in the Age of Globalization, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 167 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts, 4 Eur. J. Int’l. L. 159 (1993).Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Judicial Review and Democratic Failures: Minimizing Asymmetric Information through Adjudication, 32 Tel. Aviv. Uni. L. Rev. 277 (Hebrew) (2010).Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards, 31 NYU J. Int’l L. Pol. 843, 849 (1999).Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts, 102 Amer. J. Int’l L. 241 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders, 107 Amer. J. Int’l L. 295 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal & Downs, George W., National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law, 20 Eur. J. Int’l L. 59 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal & Downs, George, The Premises, Assumptions and Implications of Van Gend en Loos: Viewed from the Perspectives of Democracy and Legitimacy of International Institutions, 25 Eur. J. Int’l L. 85 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, Rudolf, Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention on Human Rights, 42 German Y. B. Int’l L. 11 (1999).Google Scholar
Bernstein, Lisa, Opting Out of The Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry, 21 J. Legal Stud. 115 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauch, Jeffrey A., The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law, 11 Colum. J. Eur. L. 113 (2005).Google Scholar
Briggs, Herbert W., United States Ratification of the Vienna Treaty Convention, 73 Amer. J. I. L. 470 (1979).Google Scholar
Candia, Gonzalo, Comparing Diverse Approaches to the Margin of Appreciation: The Case of the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2406705.
Carozza, Paolo G., Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1217 (1998).Google Scholar
Cartier, Stéphanie & Hoss, Cristina, The Role of Registries and Legal Secretariats in International Judicial Institutions, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 712 (Romano, Cesare P.R. et al., eds., 2013).CrossRef
Cavallaro, James L. & Brewer, Stephanie Erin, Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court, 102 Am. J. Int’l. L. 768 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallaro, James L. & Brewer, Stephanie Erin, Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court, 102 Am. J. Int’l. L. 768 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, Abram, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281 (1976).Google Scholar
Cogan, Jacob Katz, Competition and Control in International Adjudication, 48 Va. J. Int’l L. 411 (2008).Google Scholar
Cohen, Amichai, Legal Operational Advice in the Israeli Defense Forces: The International Law Department and the Changing Nature of International Humanitarian Law, 26 Conn. J. Int’l L. 367 (2011).Google Scholar
Davenport, David, International Criminal Court: 12 Years, $1 Billion, 2 Convictions, Forbes Mar. 12, 2014.
Dezalay, Sara & Dezalay, Yves, Professionals of International Justice: From the Shadow of State Diplomacy to the Pull of the Market for Commercial Arbitration, in International Law as a Profession 311 (eds. Jean D’Aspremont et al, 2017).CrossRef
Dothan, Shai, The Advantage of International Courts, 31 Bar Ilan University Law Review 675 ( 2018 ) (Hebrew).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law: The Case of Prisoners’ Disenfranchisement, in Comparative International Law 379 (Roberts, Anthea et al., eds., Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, In Defence of Expansive Interpretation in the European Court of Human Rights, 3 Cambridge J. Int’l & Comp. L. 508 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dothan, Shai, How International Courts Enhance Their Legitimacy, 14 Theo. Inq. L. 455 (2013).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, International Courts Improve Public Deliberation, 39 Mich. J. Int’l L. 217 ( 2018 ).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, Judicial Tactics in the European Court of Human Rights, 12 Chi. J. Int’l. L. 115 (2011).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, Luring NGOs to International Courts: A Comment on CLR v. Romania, 75 Heidelberg J. Int’l L. 635 ( 2015 ).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group, 19 German L.J. 2165 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dothan, Shai, The Optimal Use of Comparative Law, 43 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y. 21 (2014).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, Social Networks and the Enforcement of International Law, in Edward Elgar Research Handbook on the Sociology of International Law 333 (Hirsch, Moshe & Lang, Andrew, eds., 2018).CrossRef
Dothan, Shai, Three Interpretive Constraints on the European Court of Human Rights, in The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels: Contestations and Deference 227 (Kanetake, Machiko & Nollkaemper, André, eds., Hart Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, The Three Traditional Approaches to Treaty Interpretation: A Current Application to the European Court of Human Rights, 42 Fordham Int’l L.J. 765 (2019).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai, A Virtual Wall of Shame: The New Way of Imposing Reputational Sanctions on Defiant States, 27 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l. L. 141 ( 2017 ).Google Scholar
Dothan, Shai & Jemielniak, Joanna, A Paradigm Shift? Arbitration and Court-Like Mechanisms in Investors’ Disputes forthcoming Eur. YB. Int’l Economic L. (2020).
Dunoff, Jeffrey L. & Trachtman, Joel P., The Law and Economics of Humanitarian Law Violations in Internal Conflict, 93 Amer. J. Int’l L. 394 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, Susan, The Prisoner’s Right to Vote and Civic Responsibility: Reaffirming the Social Contract? 56 Probation J. 224 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enten, Harry J., Felon Voting Rights Have a Bigger Impact on Elections than Voter ID Laws, The Guardian July 31, 2013.
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, & Martin, Andrew D., The Political (Science) Context of Judging, 47 St. Louis U. L.J. 783 (2003).Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr., Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 613 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, Owen M., The Social and Political Foundations of Adjudication, 6 Law & Hum. Behav. 121 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Malgosia & Merkouris, Panos, Canons of Treaty Interpretation: Selected Case Studies from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, in Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on 153 (Fitzmaurice, Malgosia et al., eds., 2010).CrossRef
Friedman, Milton, The Methodology of Positive Economics, Essays in Positive Economics 3 (1953).
Fuller, Lon L., The Forms and Limits of Adjudication, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 353 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard, What’s Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making, 26 L. & Soc. Inquiry 465 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, 45 Va. J. Int’l L. 631 (2005).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, Eastphalia as the Perfection of Westphalia, 17 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 27 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom & McAdams, Richard H., Adjudication in Anarchy: an Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution, 45 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1229 (2004).Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, 91 Amer. J. Socio. 481 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, Mark, Threshold Models of Collective Behavior, 83 Amer. J. Soc. 1420 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Peter M., Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, 46 Int’l Org. 1 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Terence C., Karpik, Lucien, & Feeley, Malcolm, Introduction: the Legal Complex in Struggles for Political Liberalism, in Fighting for Political Freedom: Comparative Studies of the Legal Complex and Political Change 1 (Halliday, Terence C., Karpik, Lucien, & Feeley, Malcolm, eds., 2007).
Hathaway, Oona A., Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 469 (2005).Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale L.J. 273 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response to Professors Posner and Yoo, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 899 (2005).Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. & Voeten, Erik, International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe, 68 Int’l Org. 77 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Kevin Jon, A Sentence-Based Theory of Complementarity, 53 Harv. Int’l L.J. 85 (2012).Google Scholar
Hentrei, Simon, Generalising the Principle of Complementarity: Framing International Judicial Authority, 4 Trans. Leg. Theo. 419 (2013).Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Lord, The Universality of Human Rights, Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, Mar. 19, 2009, available at https://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/hoffmann_2009_jsb_annual_lecture_universality_of_human_rights.pdf.
Hofmann, Andreas, Is the Commission Levelling the Playing Field? Rights Enforcement in the European Union, 40 J. Eur. Integration 737 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Holderstein Holtermann, Jakob, A “Slice of Cheese” – A Deterrence-Based Argument for the International Criminal Court, 11 Hum. Rts. Rev. 289 (2010).Google Scholar
Hough, Andrew, Prisoner Vote: What MPs Said in Heated Debate, The Telegraph, Feb. 11, 2011.
Huneeus, Alexandra, Courts Resisting Courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court’s Struggle to Enforce Human Rights, 44 Cornell Int’l. L.J. 493 (2011).Google Scholar
Huneeus, Alexandra, International Criminal Law by Other Means: The Quasi-Criminal Jurisdiction of International Courts, 107 Am. J. Int’l L. 1 (2013).Google Scholar
Jackson, Joshua L., Broniowski v. Poland: A Recipe for Increased Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights as a Supranational Constitutional Court, 39 Conn. L. Rev. 759 (2006).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Francis G., Varieties of Approach to Treaty Interpretation: With Special Reference to the Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties before the Vienna Diplomatic Conference, 18 Int’l. & Comp. L.Q. 318 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, Benedict, Krisch, Nico, & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemp. Prob. 15 (2005).Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti, The Politics of International Law, 1 Eur. J. Int’l L. 4 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. & Sager, Lawrence G., Unpacking the Court, 96 Yale L.J. 82 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosař, David, Selecting Strasburg Judges, in Selecting Europe’s Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts (Bobek, Michal, ed., 2015).
Koh, Harold Hongju, How Is International Human Rights Law Enforced? 74 Ind. L.J. 1397 (1999).Google Scholar
Ku, Julian & Nzelibe, Jide, Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities, 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 777 (2006).Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O. & Youm, Yoosik, Racial/Ethnic Group Differences in the Prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States: A Network Explanation, 26 Sexually Transmitted Diseases 250 (1999).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauterpacht, Hersch, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties, 26 Brit. Y.B. Int’l. L. 48 (1949).Google Scholar
Law, David S., A Theory of Judicial Power and Judicial Review, 97 Geo. L.J. 723 (2009).Google Scholar
Leckie, Scott, The Inter-State Complaint Procedure in International Human Rights Law: Hopeful Prospects or Wishful Thinking? 10 Hum. Rts Q. 249 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linderfalk, Ulf, Is the Hierarchical Structure of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention Real or Not? Interpreting the Rules of Interpretation, 54 Netherlands Int’l L. Rev. 133 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne, An Information Rationale for the Power of Special Interests, 92 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 809 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Mikael Rask, Rebalancing European Human Rights: Has the Brighton Declaration Engendered a New Deal on Human Rights in Europe, 9 J. Int’l Dispute Settlement 199 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, Paul, Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin, 11 Hum. R. L.J. 57 (1990).Google Scholar
Matscher, F., Methods of Interpretation of the Convention, in The European System for The Protection of Human Rights 63 (Macdonald, R. St. J., Matscher, F., and Petzold, H., eds., 1993).
McCubbins, Mathew D. & Scwartz, Thomas, Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms, 28 Amer. J. Pol. Sci. 165 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGoldrick, Dominic, Criminal Trials before International Tribunals: Legality and Legitimacy in The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (Studies in International Law) (Donnelly, Eric, McGoldrick, Dominic, and Rowe, Peter J., eds.) 9 (2004).
Miara, Lucja & Prais, Victoria, The Role of Civil Society in the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 5 Eur. Hum. Rt. L. Rev. 528 (2012).Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank I., The Constitution, Social Rights, and Liberal Political Justification, 1 I-CON 13 (2003).CrossRef
Moravcsik, Andrew, The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe, 54 Int’l Org. 217 (2000).Google Scholar
O’Connell, Rory, Cinderella Comes to the Ball: Art 14 and the Right to Non-discrimination in the ECHR, 29 Leg. Stud. 211 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 Eur. J. Int’l L. 529 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ost, François, The Original Canons of Interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, in The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restrictions 283 (Delmas-Marty, Mireille, ed., 1992).
Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses A., & Wouters, Jan, An Introduction to Informal International Lawmaking, in Informal International Lawmaking 1 (Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses A., & Wouters, Jan, eds., 2012).CrossRef
Peters, Anne, Humanity as the A and Ω of. Sovereignty, 20 Eur. J. Int’l L. 513 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law, 38 J. Econ. Lit. 45 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popovic, Dragoljub, Prevailing of Judicial Activism over Self-Restraint in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 42 Creighton L. Rev. 361 (2009).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. & Yoo, John C., Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2005).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. & de Figueiredo, Miguel F. P., Is the International Court of Justice Biased? 34 J. Legal Stud. 599 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulkowski, Dirk, Structural Paradigms of International law, in The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law: Considering Sovereignty, Supremacy and Subsidiarity 51 (Broude, Tomer & Shany, Yuval, eds., 2008).
Putnam, Robert D., Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, 42 Int’l Org. 427 ( 1988 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronen, Yaël & Naggan, Yael, Third Parties, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 806 (Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen, & Shany, Yuval, eds., 2013).
Ruth, Alexandra and Trilsch, Mirja, Bankovic v. Belgium (Admissibility), 97 Am. J. Int’l L 168 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory & Ginsburg, Tom, The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship, 106 Am. J. Int’l L. 1 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Yuval, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach, 106 Amer. J. Int’l. L. 225 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Yuval, Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law? 16 Eur. J. Int’l L. 907 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, Dinah, The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings, 88 Am. J. Int’l. L. 611 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. & Danner, Allison, Credible Commitments and the International Criminal Court, 64 Int’l Org. 225 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack, James, Social Ties Keep Rapists in Britain, Mail On Line Sept. 21, 2011.
Spano, Robert, Universality or Diversity of Human Rights: Strasburg in the Age of Subsidiarity, 14 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 487 (2014).Google Scholar
von Staden, Andreas, The Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review, 10 Int’l J. Con. L. 1023 (2012).Google Scholar
Stearns, Maxwell L., The Condorcet Jury Theorem and Judicial Decisionmaking: A Reply to Saul Levmore, 3 Theo. Inq. L. 125 (2002).Google Scholar
Stiansen, Øyvind, Competition and Compliance: Electoral Uncertainty and Implementation of Judgments from the International Human Rights Judiciary (draft available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3116708).
Sumption, Lord, The 27th Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture, Kuala Lumpur: The Limits of Law (Nov. 20, 2013), www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131120.pdf.
Sunstein, Cass R., Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes, 110 Yale L.J. 71 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, James B., The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129 (1893).Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, Peter, NGO Involvement in the WTO: A Comparative Perspective, 11 J. Int’l. Econ. L. 717, 721 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vauchez, Antoine, Communities of International Litigators, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 655 (Romano, Cesare P. R. et al., eds., 2013).CrossRef
Voeten, Erik, Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts, 14 Theo. Inq. L. 411 (2013).Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik, The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, 102 am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 417 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, 61 Int’l. Org. 669 (2007).Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy, Are Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefit of the International Rule of Law, 22 Eur. J. Int’l L. 315 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy, The Core of the Case against Judicial Review, 115 Yale L.J. 1346 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worstall, Tim, Misunderstanding Brexit–Scrapping the Human Rights Act for a British Bill of Rights, Forbes Aug. 23, 2016.
American Convention on Human Rights
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Statute of the Council of Europe
Statute of the International Court of Justice
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Case of A. A. v. The United Kingdom, judgment of September 20, 2011.
Case of A, B, and C v. Ireland, judgment of December 16, 2010.
Case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom, judgment of May 28, 1985 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 94.
Airey v. Ireland, judgment of October 9, 1979, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)32.
Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Artico v. Italy, judgment of May 13, 1980 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)37.
Bankovic and others v. Belgium and Others, Decision of December 12, 2001, EUR. Ct. H.R. 2001-XII 333
Broniowski v. Poland, judgment of June 22, 2004, 2004-V EUR. Ct. H.R. 1.
Cossey case, judgment of September 27, 1990 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 184.
CLR v. Romania, judgment of July 17, 2014, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2014.
Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of May 10, 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 2001-IV.
Case of D. H. and Others v. The Czech Republic, judgment of February 7, 2006.
Case of D. H. and Others v. The Czech Republic, judgment of November 11, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2007-IV.
Case of Dickson v. The United Kingdom, judgment of December 4, 2007.
Dudgeon v. The United Kingdom, judgment of October 22, 1981 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 45.
Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom, judgment of April 10, 2007.
Fairfield and Others v. The United Kingdom, Decision of March 8, 2005.
Golder v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, Eur. Comm’n H.R., (ser. B no. 16) 1 June 1973.
Case of Golder v. The United Kingdom judgment of February 21, 1975 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)18.
Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of July 11, 2002, 2002-VI EUR. Ct. H.R. 1.
Greens and MT v. United Kingdom, judgment of November 23, 2010, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2010.
Case of Haas v. The Netherlands, judgment of January 13, 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-I.
Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), judgment of October 6, 2005, 2005-IX EUR. Ct. H.R. 187.
Case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom, judgment of January 18, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25.
Case of Klass and others Judgment of September 6, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)28.
Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, judgment of November 10, 2005.
Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of March 23, 1995, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser.A) 310.
Case of Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of December 18, 1996 (merits) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI.
Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of June 13, 1979 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)31.
Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of March 25, 1983, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)62.
Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, judgment of January 17, 2012, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2012.
Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” judgment of July 23, 1968 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 6.
Rees v. The United Kingdom, judgment of October 17, 1986 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 106.
S.A.S v. France, judgment of July 1, 2014
Sheffield and Horsham v. The United Kingdom, judgment of July 30, 1998, 1998-V EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Soering case, judgment of 7 July 1989, EUR. Ct. H.R (ser. A)161.
Case of Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom, judgment of April 12, 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VI.
Grand Chamber Decision as to the Admissibility of Applications nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01 by Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom.
Tyrer case, judgment of April 25, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 26.
Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of November 23, 1983 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)70.
Von Hannover v. Germany, 2004-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.
Case of Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of June 27, 1968 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 7.
X and Y v. The Netherlands, Judgment of March 26, 1985 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)91.
Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-trial Chamber II of May 30, 2011 entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute,” Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Muthaura, Kenyatta, and Ali) (ICC-01/09–02/11 OA), Appeals Chamber, Aug. 30, 2011.
Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi & Abdullah Al-Senussi, Case No. ICC-01/11-01/11, Pre-trial Chamber I Decision Requesting Further Submissions on Issues Related to the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 5–19 (Dec. 7, 2012).
Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, IT-96-22-T ICTY Trial Chamber I (1996) at par. 19.
Rewe Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein C-120/78, (1979) European court Reports (E.C.R.), 649.
Case C-402/05P and C-415/05P. Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351
Case C-584/10P, C-593/10P, and C 595/10P Commission v. Kadi, judgment of July 18, 2013.
Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), [2004] ICJ Rep. 12.
WTO Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products WT/DS58/AB/R (12 Oct. 1998)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
The State of New South Wales v. Amery and Others, [2006] HCA 14 par. 168–171.
HCJ 5100/94 Public Committee against Torture v. Israel [1999] IsrSC 53(4) 817.
Case of A. A. v. The United Kingdom, judgment of September 20, 2011.
Case of A, B, and C v. Ireland, judgment of December 16, 2010.
Case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. The United Kingdom, judgment of May 28, 1985 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 94.
Airey v. Ireland, judgment of October 9, 1979, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)32.
Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Artico v. Italy, judgment of May 13, 1980 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)37.
Bankovic and others v. Belgium and Others, Decision of December 12, 2001, EUR. Ct. H.R. 2001-XII 333
Broniowski v. Poland, judgment of June 22, 2004, 2004-V EUR. Ct. H.R. 1.
Cossey case, judgment of September 27, 1990 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 184.
CLR v. Romania, judgment of July 17, 2014, Reports of Judgments and Decisions EUR. Ct. H.R. 2014.
Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of May 10, 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 2001-IV.
Case of D. H. and Others v. The Czech Republic, judgment of February 7, 2006.
Case of D. H. and Others v. The Czech Republic, judgment of November 11, 2011, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2007-IV.
Case of Dickson v. The United Kingdom, judgment of December 4, 2007.
Dudgeon v. The United Kingdom, judgment of October 22, 1981 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 45.
Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom, judgment of April 10, 2007.
Fairfield and Others v. The United Kingdom, Decision of March 8, 2005.
Golder v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, Eur. Comm’n H.R., (ser. B no. 16) 1 June 1973.
Case of Golder v. The United Kingdom judgment of February 21, 1975 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)18.
Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of July 11, 2002, 2002-VI EUR. Ct. H.R. 1.
Greens and MT v. United Kingdom, judgment of November 23, 2010, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2010.
Case of Haas v. The Netherlands, judgment of January 13, 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-I.
Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), judgment of October 6, 2005, 2005-IX EUR. Ct. H.R. 187.
Case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom, judgment of January 18, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25.
Case of Klass and others Judgment of September 6, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)28.
Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, judgment of November 10, 2005.
Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of March 23, 1995, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser.A) 310.
Case of Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of December 18, 1996 (merits) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI.
Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of June 13, 1979 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)31.
Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of March 25, 1983, EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)62.
Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, judgment of January 17, 2012, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2012.
Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” judgment of July 23, 1968 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 6.
Rees v. The United Kingdom, judgment of October 17, 1986 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 106.
S.A.S v. France, judgment of July 1, 2014
Sheffield and Horsham v. The United Kingdom, judgment of July 30, 1998, 1998-V EUR. Ct. H.R. 2011.
Soering case, judgment of 7 July 1989, EUR. Ct. H.R (ser. A)161.
Case of Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom, judgment of April 12, 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VI.
Grand Chamber Decision as to the Admissibility of Applications nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01 by Stec and Others v. The United Kingdom.
Tyrer case, judgment of April 25, 1978 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 26.
Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of November 23, 1983 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)70.
Von Hannover v. Germany, 2004-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.
Case of Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of June 27, 1968 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 7.
X and Y v. The Netherlands, Judgment of March 26, 1985 EUR. Ct. H.R. (ser. A)91.
Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-trial Chamber II of May 30, 2011 entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute,” Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Muthaura, Kenyatta, and Ali) (ICC-01/09–02/11 OA), Appeals Chamber, Aug. 30, 2011.
Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi & Abdullah Al-Senussi, Case No. ICC-01/11-01/11, Pre-trial Chamber I Decision Requesting Further Submissions on Issues Related to the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 5–19 (Dec. 7, 2012).
Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, IT-96-22-T ICTY Trial Chamber I (1996) at par. 19.
Rewe Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein C-120/78, (1979) European court Reports (E.C.R.), 649.
Case C-402/05P and C-415/05P. Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351
Case C-584/10P, C-593/10P, and C 595/10P Commission v. Kadi, judgment of July 18, 2013.
Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), [2004] ICJ Rep. 12.
WTO Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products WT/DS58/AB/R (12 Oct. 1998)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
The State of New South Wales v. Amery and Others, [2006] HCA 14 par. 168–171.
HCJ 5100/94 Public Committee against Torture v. Israel [1999] IsrSC 53(4) 817.