| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
093409
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131486
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Do international court judgments influence the behavior of actors other than the parties to a dispute? Are international courts agents of policy change or do their judgments merely reflect evolving social and political trends? We develop a theory that specifies the conditions under which international courts can use their interpretive discretion to have system-wide effects. We examine the theory in the context of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues by creating a new data set that matches these rulings with laws in all Council of Europe (CoE) member states. We also collect data on LGBT policies unaffected by ECtHR judgments to control for the confounding effect of evolving trends in national policies. We find that ECtHR judgments against one country substantially increase the probability of national-level policy change across Europe. The marginal effects of the judgments are especially high where public acceptance of sexual minorities is low, but where national courts can rely on ECtHR precedents to invalidate domestic laws or where the government in power is not ideologically opposed to LGBT equality. We conclude by exploring the implications of our findings for other international courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107534
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Can the application of domestic law by bureaucracies in powerful states alter policy dynamics globally? Courts and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over large markets routinely impose national rules to conduct transpiring outside of their physical borders. Such extraterritoriality has expanded to issues ranging from antitrust to the environment. Proponents claim that extraterritorial acts can have far-reaching international consequences, spilling over into the domestic political economy of regulation in target states. Skeptics, however, question the effects of these sanctions against internationally mobile actors. In this study, we offer the first quantitative analysis of extraterritorial intervention for global policy convergence. In particular, we construct an original time-series panel data set to test the association between extraterritorial actions by U.S. prosecutors and the national enforcement of foreign bribery regulations in target countries. Our empirical analysis finds strong statistical evidence linking extraterritoriality to national policy implementation, with jurisdictions that experienced a U.S. intervention being twenty times more likely to enforce their national rules. The findings suggest the important influence that domestic law in powerful states may have for global cooperation in general and sheds light on the key pillars of international anticorruption efforts in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140148
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
133944
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The concept of precedent is fundamental to domestic courts, especially in Anglo-American common law systems, where judges are bound to the court's past decisions. By contrast, precedent has no formal authority in international law. Legal scholars point to Article 59 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute in this respect, according to which international legal rulings are binding only on the parties in the dispute at hand, and have no bearing on matters outside of the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
104441
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the different dimensions of the so-called resource curse hypothesis from the perspective of international and domestic law. The analysis is structured as a commentary of the views of the UK-based philosopher Leif Wenar and the Swiss philosopher Peter Schaber on this issue. The article concludes that, under current legal arrangements, states remain the main guarantors of the public good of the people living under their sovereignty. Thus, for better or worse as long as, from a political or an ethical standpoint, peoples are sovereign, they will also continue to assume the main responsibility for their own development even when their house is not in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|