Judicial Power in Domestic and International Politics

Abstract

Although scholars have made considerable progress on a number of important research questions by relaxing assumptions commonly used to divide political science into subfields, rigid boundaries remain in some contexts+ In this essay, we suggest that the assumption that international politics is characterized by anarchy whereas domestic politics is characterized by hierarchy continues to divide research on the conditions under which governments are constrained by courts, international or domestic+ We contend that we will learn more about the process by which courts constrain governments, and do so more quickly, if we relax the assumption and recognize the substantial similarities between domestic and international research on this topic+ We review four recent books that highlight contemporary theories of the extent to which domestic and international law binds states, and discuss whether a rigid boundary between international and domestic scholarship can be sustained on either theoretical or empirical grounds+

An Empirical Evaluation of Explanations for State Repression

“…As discussed above, these results are consistent with the comparative literature on institutional constraints on government behavior, which views an independent judiciary as crucial in limiting government encroachment on basic rights (see especially North and Weingast 1989; Vanberg 2005; Weingast 1997). This also suggests that insights from theories of judicial behavior and the construction of judicial power may be useful for future work on repression (See Carrubba 2009; Staton 2006; Staton and Moore 2011; Vanberg 2005).…”

Best Evidence: The Role of Information in Domestic Judicial Enforcement of International Human Rights Agreements

“…Powell and Staton (2009) argue that judicial effectiveness is "not only a function of the power of courts to set limits on state behavior, but also of the government's expectations over whether victims of repression will seek legal redress" (p. 151). Thus, while there is an important debate regarding whether the crucial characteristic of the judiciary is its autonomy or its effectiveness (Staton and Moore 2011), there seems to be a consensus that the domestic judiciary is essential to the enforcement of international agreements.…”

Compliance With International Law

“…Surely international agreements do more than simply spell out identical or complementary interests; otherwise it is hard to understand why they exist. Moreover, many argue, skeptics of IL overstate the gap between municipal and IL (Staton and Moore 2011). In reality, domestic contracts often rely on non-governmental mechanisms for their enforcement, whereas a number of international rules are interpreted if not enforced by international bodies.…”