Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-489z4 Total loading time: 0.701 Render date: 2022-05-16T14:48:31.875Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

13 - Laggards or Pioneers? When Scandinavian Avant-garde Judges Do Not Cite International Case Law: A Methodological Framework

from Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2018

Marlene Wind
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

Scandinavia is often hailed as the cradle of peace studies and international law. However, apart from anecdotal evidence we in fact know very little about whether democracies that often portray themselves as the home of human rights actually legitimise these values at home by referring to them in their own case law. By applying original new data, this chapter sets out to develop and discuss a quantitative methodology to measure the impact and legitimacy of international law and courts on the ground among some of the world’s most advanced democracies. We thus provide an innovative analysis mapping how Supreme Courts in Scandinavia over a fifty-year-long time span have cited (or refrained from doing so) international courts’ case law, treaties and conventions. We argue that in conducting such a comprehensive study, we have acquired not only a unique historic picture of the impact of these supranational instruments on domestic legal orders; we also now have a much better idea of whether and to what extent the Supreme Courts in question consider a supranational rule of law legitimate. It is hypothesised, moreover, that majoritarian democracies generally cite significantly fewer international cases and conventions than democracies with a solid national judicial review tradition.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

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

References

Adcock, R. & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–46.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Bellamy, R. (2007). Political Constitutionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 394420.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. (2006). Sweden: Once a Moral Superpower, Always a Moral Superpower? International Journal, 61(4), 859908.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 273392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards Juristocracy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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), 7586.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?
Landes, W. M. & Posner, R. A. (1976). Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 249307.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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), 2034.CrossRefGoogle 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. 189203.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).
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), 470504.CrossRefGoogle 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), 191219.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. (2004). A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1346–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wind, M., Sindberg, D. & Rotger, G. P. (2008). The Uneven Legal Push for Europe. European Union Politics 9(4), 487512.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), 6388.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 120.
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), 281302.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×