File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1086/668499
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85090333251
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Trustee courts and the judicialization of international regimes: The politics of majoritarian activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization
Title | Trustee courts and the judicialization of international regimes: The politics of majoritarian activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2013 |
Citation | Journal of Law and Courts, 2013, v. 1, n. 1, p. 61-88 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The article focuses on judicial politics in three international regimes. The courts of these regimes are trustee courts, operating in an environment of judicial supremacy with respect to states. An international trustee court meets three criteria: (1) the court is the authoritative interpreter of the regime’s law; (2) the court’s jurisdiction is compulsory; and (3) it is virtually impossible, in practice, for contracting states to reverse the court’s important rulings. After developing a theory of trusteeship, we turn to how judges have used their powers. Although there is variation, each court has engaged in “majoritarian activism,” producing law that reflects standard practices or a high degree of state consensus but that would not have been adopted by states under unanimity decision rules. Majoritarian activism helps judges to develop the law progressively, to mitigate potential legitimacy problems, and to render efforts at curbing the growth of their authority improbable or ineffective. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/300136 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.384 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Stone Sweet, Alec | - |
dc.contributor.author | Brunell, Thomas L. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-04T05:49:07Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-06-04T05:49:07Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Law and Courts, 2013, v. 1, n. 1, p. 61-88 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2164-6570 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/300136 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The article focuses on judicial politics in three international regimes. The courts of these regimes are trustee courts, operating in an environment of judicial supremacy with respect to states. An international trustee court meets three criteria: (1) the court is the authoritative interpreter of the regime’s law; (2) the court’s jurisdiction is compulsory; and (3) it is virtually impossible, in practice, for contracting states to reverse the court’s important rulings. After developing a theory of trusteeship, we turn to how judges have used their powers. Although there is variation, each court has engaged in “majoritarian activism,” producing law that reflects standard practices or a high degree of state consensus but that would not have been adopted by states under unanimity decision rules. Majoritarian activism helps judges to develop the law progressively, to mitigate potential legitimacy problems, and to render efforts at curbing the growth of their authority improbable or ineffective. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Law and Courts | - |
dc.title | Trustee courts and the judicialization of international regimes: The politics of majoritarian activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1086/668499 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85090333251 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 61 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 88 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2164-6589 | - |