General courts,specialized courts,and the complementarity effect

Among the major decisions any legal system must make is deciding whether to establish general courts with broad jurisdiction, or specialized courts with limited jurisdiction. Under one influential argument—advanced by both judges and legal theorists—general courts foster coherence within the legal system. This Article identifies a distinct effect of establishing general courts: the “complementarity effect.” In the case of complementarity, general courts strategically apply different principles in different fields, such that litigants losing in one sphere (e.g., public law) are compensated in another (e.g., private law). We support this conjecture by analyzing three case studies.     

State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges

Do state supreme courts act impartially or are they swayed by public opinion? Do judicial elections influence judge behavior? To date these questions have received little direct attention due to the absence of comparable public opinion data in states and obstacles to collecting data necessary for comprehensive analysis of state supreme court outcomes. Advances in measurement, data archiving, and methodology now allow for consideration of the link between public opinion and judicial outcomes in the American states. The analysis presented considers public opinion's influence on the composition of courts (indirect effects) and its influence on judge votes in capital punishment cases (direct effects). In elective state supreme courts, public support for capital punishment influences the ideological composition of those courts and judge willingness to uphold death sentences. Notably, public support for capital punishment has no measurable effect on nonelective state supreme courts. On the highly salient issue of the death penalty, mass opinion and the institution of electing judges systematically influence court composition and judge behavior.     

The law and politics of transnational rights protection: Trusteeship,effectiveness, de-delegation

International trustee courts embody a specific form of delegation, in which state principals confer on such courts the authority to interpret and apply treaties agreed by the states in order to realize specific values and interests. Human rights courts help states resolve commitment and enforcement problems that are inherent in human rights treaties. This study seeks to answer the question, what happens when states parties seek to reduce or eliminate the authority of a human rights court? To answer these questions, the article assesses six human rights treaty regimes: the Council of Europe; the Organization of American States; the African Union; the Economic Community of West African States; the East African Community; and the Southern African Development Community. The article identifies four types of de-delegation possible with respect to international human rights courts and assesses the extent to which states have sought to de-delegate from them. With one exception (the SADC Tribunal), the regimes examined here have so far successfully withstood the challenge of de-delegation.     

National Constitutional Courts,the Court of Justice and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in a Post-Charter Landscape

This article critically evaluates the possible impact of the Charter on the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and national constitutional courts. While it is premature to provide a definitive assessment of the kind of collaboration that these courts will develop, it is crucial to identify a number of features of the new landscape that will influence the direction in which the relationship between the CJEU and constitutional courts will evolve. This article discusses several reasons that may result in better or a higher number of judicial interactions, as well as factors that may create tension or cause problems in the relationship between the CJEU and national constitutional courts. As such, it offers a framework that may help us to understand future post-Charter judgments by these courts setting out how they conceive their engagement with their counterpart(s) on fundamental rights issues.     

The Federal Judiciary and Northern School Desegregation: Law, Politics, and Judicial Management

Using a three-tier analysis, this article examines how the interplayof political and legal factors has influenced the developmentof school desegregation policy in Michigan and Ohio. The authorconcludes, among other things, that the district courts, theSixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court aresensitive to the influences of politics and legalism, but thatthe responses of the three kinds of federal courts are different.Recognizing a constitutional imperative to eradicate segregation,district courts have emphasized the participation of electedofficials and affected community groups in the remedial process.Because of isolation and low visibility, the Sixth Circuit hastended to pursue a more tenacious policy course than eitherthe district court or the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the U.S.Supreme Court has generally championed the cause of local officialsby attempting to balance the interest of eliminating segregationwith that of protecting the integrity of state and local decisionmakers.     

Constitutional courts as veto players: Lessons from the United States,France and Germany

The number of constitutional courts and supreme courts with constitutional review rights has strongly increased with the third wave of democratisation across the world as an important element of the new constitutionalism. These courts play an important role in day‐to‐day politics as they can nullify acts of parliament and thus prevent or reverse a change in the status quo. In macro‐concepts of comparative politics, their role is unclear. Either they are integrated as counter‐majoritarian institutional features of a political system or they are entirely ignored: some authors do not discuss their potential impact at all, while others dismiss them because they believe their preferences as veto players are entirely absorbed by other actors in the political system. However, we know little about the conditions and variables that determine them as being counter‐majoritarian or veto players. This article employs the concept of Tsebelis’ veto player theory to analyse the question. It focuses on the spatial configuration of veto players in the legislative process and then adds the court as an additional player to find out if it is absorbed in the pareto‐efficient set of the existing players or not. A court which is absorbed by other veto players should not in theory veto new legislation. It is argued in this article that courts are conditional veto players. Their veto is dependent on three variables: the ideological composition of the court; the pattern of government control; and the legislative procedures. To empirically support the analysis, data from the United States, France and Germany from 1974 to 2009 is used. This case selection increases variance with regard to system types and court types. The main finding is that courts are not always absorbed as veto players: during the period of analysis, absorption varies between 11 and 71 per cent in the three systems. Furthermore, the pattern of absorption is specific in each country due to government control, court majority and legislative procedure. Therefore, it can be concluded that they are conditional veto players. The findings have at least two implications. First, constitutional courts and supreme courts with judicial review rights should be systematically included in veto player analysis of political systems and not left aside. Any concept ignoring such courts may lead to invalid results, and any concept that counts such courts merely as an institutional feature may lead to distorted results that over‐ or under‐estimate their impact. Second, the findings also have implications for the study of judicial politics. The main bulk of literature in this area is concerned with auto‐limitation, the so‐called ‘self‐restraint’ of the government to avoid defeat at the court. This auto‐limitation, however, should only occur if a court is not absorbed. However, vetoes observed when the court is absorbed might be explained by strategic behaviour among judges engaging in selective defection.     

Regulating Assisted Reproduction in Canada,Switzerland, and the USA: Comparing the Judicialization of Policy-Making

This article analyses the extent to which courts shape policies for assisted reproduction. While the USA is considered to be the most litigious country, Canada has observed a growing involvement of the courts from the 1980s onward, and Switzerland is characterized by a modest degree of judicialization. Based on national patterns, we would expect litigation and court impact to vary across these three countries. As the empirical analysis reveals, policy-process-specific variables such as the novelty of regulation, self-regulation by key stakeholders, and the policies in place better explain the variation in the judicialization of policy-making.     

Courts, the new constitutionalism and immigrant rights: The case of the French Conseil Constitutionnel

Abstract.  This article examines the role of courts in the creation of immigrant rights. Immigrant rights are located within a broader 'new constitutionalism' (especially in postwar Europe), in which courts have abandoned their traditional passiveness toward the political process and taken on the role of de facto legislator. Analyzing the immigration jurisprudence of the French Conseil Constitutionnel , we argue that courts are torn between two opposite imperatives: to protect an especially vulnerable category of people from the enormous police powers of the modern administrative state; and to respect an elementary exigency of sovereign stateness – that is, the capacity to draw a distinction between 'citizens' and 'aliens' as differently situated persons without a right of entry and permanence.     

Rivalry and superior dispatch: an?analysis of competing courts in medieval and early modern England

In most areas, economists look to competition to align incentives, but not so with courts. Many believe that competition enables plaintiff forum shopping, but Adam Smith praised rivalry among courts. This article describes the courts when the common law developed. In many areas of law, courts were monopolized and imposed decisions on unwilling participants. In other areas, however, large degrees of competition and consent were present. In many areas, local, hundred, manorial, county, ecclesiastical, law merchant, chancery, and common law courts competed for customers. When parties had a choice, courts needed to provide a forum that was ex ante value maximizing.     

Gender,Citizenship, and Constitutionalism in Zimbabwe: The Fight Against Amendment 14

This article examines the nexus between gender, citizenship and constitutionalism. By using the case study of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of Zimbabwe, I seek to illustrate how the rights of women with respect to citizenship are manipulated by the state, with this discrimination often couched under African 'culture' or 'tradition'. The article also interrogates the limitations of utilizing the courts in the struggle for gender equality, because of the patriarchal values which are upheld and promoted, often erroneously. In describing the surprising victory by civil society groups and activists in challenging both the courts and the state nationally, this piece concludes with some thoughts on how a broader struggle for gender equality is necessary in the pursuit of social justice.     

Rights,review, and spending: Policy outcomes with judicially enforceable rights

Abstract. This paper posits that countries with a constitutional right to social security that can be enforced by courts via judicial review will show patterns of spending on social security that are distinct from countries with other constitutional and judicial arrangements. Governments in countries with enforceable rights will be constrained to spend more on transfer programs to avoid censure from the courts. The hypotheses are tested using data from 22 OECD countries using time–series cross–section analysis. The results show that enforceable rights are associated with higher growth rates in social security spending and lower fluctuation in expenditures on social programs, although the amount of GDP spent on social transfers is unaffected by rights. These results are consistent with the idea that governments' spending habits are constrained by positive rights, but rebut the argument that rights lead to economic distortions.     

The Legal Order and the Administration of Federal and State Courts

The Nigerian Constitution of 1989 establishes a system of federaland state courts, but within a structure of unified federal-statejurisdiction from the federal and state high courts, to thefederal Court of Appeal, and to the national Supreme Court.Thus, both sets of courts exercise jurisdiction with respectto federal and state laws. Although this system mitigates certainfederal-state jurisdictional conflicts, it does not eliminatesuch conflicts. At the same time, however, the Constitutionalso provides for Sharia courts of appeal under Moslem law andfor customary-law courts of appeal, thus establishing a tripartitesystem of justice. Although this system seeks to accommodateNigeria's ethnic and religious diversity, it does raise problemsfor national unity, judicial uniformity, and equity in the administrationof civil and criminal justice.     

The weakness of strong policies and the strength of weak policies: Law,experimentalist governance,and supporting coalitions in European Union health care policy

The experience of European Union (EU) health care services policy shows the importance of supporting coalitions in any effort to effect policy change and the extent to which the presence or absence of such coalitions can qualify generalizations about policymaking. EU health care services law is substantively liberalizing and procedurally driven by the courts, with little legislative input. But the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been much better at establishing an EU competency in law than in causing policy development in the EU or member states. Literature on courts helps to explain why: courts are most effective when they enjoy supporting coalitions and the ECJ does not have a significant supporting coalition for its liberalizing health care services policy. Based on interview data, this article argues that the hard law of health care services deregulation and the newer forms of health care governance, such as the Open Method of Coordination and the networks on rare diseases, depend on supporting coalitions in member states that are willing to litigate, lobby, budget, decide cases, and otherwise implement EU law and policy. Given the resistance that the Court has met in health care sectors, its overarching deregulatory approach might produce smaller effects than expected, and forms of experimentalist governance that are easy to deride might turn out to have supporting coalitions that make them unexpectedly effective.     

Judicial Responses to Counter-Terrorism Law after September 11

The role of the courts is quite important, especially in the protection of individual rights and liberties. Many counter-terrorism policies implemented at the national level often infringe on these rights, and courts are the best line of defense against these violations of liberty. However, courts do not always rule in favor of liberty, sometimes ruling in favor of a strict government policy. This analysis seeks to explain the conditions that may lead courts to rule in favor of, or against, the government, arguing that political fragmentation is a potentially key factor in determining when particular case outcomes occur.     

Courts and the politics of secrecy: national security,human rights and the importance of supranational oversight

Abstract

The article examines the use of state secrecy in court litigation concerning alleged gross human rights violations committed in the struggle against terrorism, focusing specifically on cases of extraordinary rendition and comparing the performance of courts in the United States, in Italy and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article explains that national courts have validated the assertion by national governments of the state secret privilege in litigation involving cases of extraordinary rendition, ensuring de facto immunity to individuals involved in gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, it underlines that the ECtHR has pierced the veil covering these ‘deep secrets’, undertaking a strict scrutiny of acts of extraordinary rendition to torture committed by governments in the name of national security. As the article argues, the success of the ECtHR can be explained by a number of reasons, including distance, time and institutional design. In conclusion, the case law of the ECtHR on secrecy and national security confirms the continuing importance of supranational courts as instruments of external oversight on the human rights practice of European states.     

State High Courts, State Constitutions, and Individual Rights Litigation Since 1980: A Judicial Survey

In 1985, state courts of last resort issued more decisions thanin any year since 1950 in which they extended rights protectionsto individuals beyond those recognized by the U.S. Supreme Courtby basing rights protections solely or independently upon stateconstitutional grounds. A survey of state high court judgesand justices reported here indicates that there has been a nationwideincrease in the number of individual rights cases litigatedunder state constitutions since 1980. Significant-to-moderateincreases, however, were more likely to be reported by justicesfrom the Northeast and West, from states having a moralisticpolitical culture, and from courts whose members are appointedby the governor and/or legislature. State constitutional rightsclaims are more likely to be raised in criminal than noncriminalcases, though in both types of cases and in most states, stateconstitutional rights claims are raised less frequently thanfederal constitutional rights claims. Majorities of judges andjustices favor the ideas of teaching state constitutional lawin law schools and of testing for knowledge of state constitutionallaw on bar examinations.     

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court of Washington, 1890-1986

The literature on judicial review by state supreme courts suggeststhat from the beginnings of the republic until today, statejudicial review has shifted generally from what can be calleda restraintist departmentalism to an activist "new federalism."Since statehood in 1889, the Supreme Court of Washington hasreacted to constitutional challenges in much the same manneras the high courts of other states. Recently, however, Washington'sjurists have forged an independent course by applying the morerestrictive aspects of the state constitution to private andgovernmental intrusions into personal lives rather than relyingon the guidelines provided by the federal Constitution and theU.S. Supreme Court. The nature of this second "Golden Age" ofstate judicial review, because of its effect on federalism ratherthan the separation of powers, requires appraisal from a newperspective.     

The changing role of the federal and state courts in safeguarding the rights of the mentally disabled

From the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, federal courts havegreatly expanded the rights of persons who have been institutionalizedfor treatment of mental illness. The rights have included dueprocess in commitment proceedings, provision of services, andtreatment in the least restrictive environment. Federal courtshave based their decisions on federal statutes and constitutionalprinciples of due process, equal protection, and protectionfrom harm. More recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court haseffectively closed the federal courts as a forum for advancingthe rights of the mentally disabled. Federal courts must, inessence, defer to the states for decisions about treatment ofthe mentally disabled. State courts may decide what servicesare required under state law, while state mental health officialsmay decide specific treatment questions for individual patients.Consequently, advocates for the mentally disabled are turningto state courts to advance client rights. In 1984 two significantcases decided by the New York State Court of Appeals have thepotential for significantly expanding the rights of the mentallydisabled.     

Diffusion and Diversity: Federalism and the Right to Die in the Fifty States

Right-to-die issues—from the right to have life-sustainingtreatment withdrawn to the right to assisted suicide—arebecoming important sources of state policy activity. Withoutmuch federal instruction, some state courts have constructeda general consensus position for other courts to follow usingthe federal Constitution to legitimize their decisions. Statelegislatures have accomplished less. Statutory diversity wasthe rule until recently, with legislatures passing a rich varietyof generally conservative rules. Lately, with the pressure fromrights-oriented interest groups and professional organizations,state legislators have been edging closer to the more liberalpattern of policy charted by judges of the state supreme courts.Policymaking that applies to assisted suicide may be expectedto follow the same pattern: the federal government will remainsilent while the state courts take the lead using the U.S. Constitutionas ammunition. The state legislatures can be expected to trailbehind, catching up to the courts only after statutory diversityis found wanting.     

Is the Sun Setting on Cosmopolitan Justice?

Reports on the UN criminal tribunals and the related hybrid courts raise grave concerns about their sustainability in terms of costs and their legal standards in respect of evidence. The effectiveness of the current courts is compared to the domestic prosecution of offenders from the Auschwitz concentration camp. Although the Auschwitz court failed to capture the enormity of the crime of genocide, there are nonetheless good reasons to re-visit the use of domestic courts and other remedies for such crimes today, particularly after adoption of the genocide law by nation states. Ideals of cosmopolitan justice behind the UN courts are being exported to societies that are ill-equipped to apply or afford them; and domestic legal development suffers as a consequence.