While prior studies have tended to focus on specific questions relating either to the design or to the effects of international courts, we develop an integrated framework for the study of the performance of ICs. .. We explore factors that may explain the patterns of performance we observe. …We are interested both in the outcomes courts produce and the processes through which they arrive at judgments…. To know whether regimes or governance systems are effective, then, we argue that it is imperative to ask whether international courts perform their roles well or poorly….
in The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals. T. Squatrito, O. Young, A. Follesdal & G. Ulfstein (eds). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 3-35. [D0I/LINK] [WEB].
This Introduction surveys some of the key contributions of this volume and distills some of the lessons of its varied chapters for the legitimacy of international courts. Parts II and III are largely conceptual in approach, exploring what legitimacy means for each and all of the courts. Part II explores the concept of legitimacy as it pertains to international courts, examining the relationship between source, process, and results-oriented aspects of IC legitimacy and the relationship between legitimacy, justice, democracy, and effectiveness. Part III looks more closely at the chapters in this volume and explores their contributions to the discussions above, as well as their lessons regarding the relationship between sociological and normative legitimacy.
Part IV takes a more functional approach, exploring how various factors internal or external to particular courts have contributed to those courts’ normative or sociological legitimacy. It considers international courts in their context, examining the relationship between the specific goals, design choices, audiences, institutional contexts and IC legitimacy. It explores three models of how these factors interact in this volume’s chapters to either support of undermine an international court’s sociological or normative legitimacy. Part V provides thumbnail summaries of each the chapters that follow.
— Grossman, N., H. Cohen, A. Follesdal and G. Ulfstein 2018 “Legitimacy and International Courts – a Framework “. The Legitimacy of International Courts . N. Grossman, H. Cohen, A. Follesdal & G. Ulfstein (eds). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-40.
“The Legitimate Authority of International Courts and Its Limits: A Challenge to Raz’ Service Conception?” in Legal Authority Beyond the State. P. Capps & H. Palmer Olsen, eds. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 188-205.
Very public challenges to international courts (ICs) by state governments, legislatures, domestic or international courts, corporations, investors or civil society groups are often draped in terms of ‘legitimacy’. The challenges provoke several questions. Why should such ‘compliance constituencies’ defer to ICs’ judgments at all? More precisely: when do ICs’ judgments give such constituencies reason to act differently than they would otherwise – and when do they not? The present contribution argues that states’ disobedience may be justified due to the substantive contents of the particular ruling by an IC. Section 1 provides a brief sketch of Raz’s ‘Service account’ of legitimacy, and addresses some criticisms relevant to our concerns. Section 2 brings this account to bear on ICs, and lays out some of its distinguishing features by comparing it to the influential accounts of Daniel Bodansky and Yuval Shany. Section 3 turns to consider how this account accommodates and even justifies cases of disobedience against ICs. [D0I] [SSRN] [WEB]
Andreas Føllesdal og Geir Ulfstein i Studio 2 – P2. [WEB]
Professor Mads Bryde Andersen forsvarer utkastet til København-erklæring om den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstol (EMD)… Men han ser ut til å mene at EMD bør nedlegges: Den pirker unødig på ‘snille’ land som Danmark som ikke trenger den, og den har ingen virkning i ‘slemme’ land uansett. Vi er uenige på begge punkter. København-erklæringen burde isteden svare på EMDs hovedutfordringer: Enkelte stater er ansvarlige for omfattende brudd på sentrale menneskerettigheter, og populistiske bevegelser angriper demokratiet og rettsstatsprinsipper, nasjonalt og internasjonalt.
– Med Geir Ulfstein, Klassekampen 9. mars 2018 [LINK] [WEB].
I Klassekampen 1. mars unnlater Rotevatn å nevne at Norge ikke har vært kritisk til det danske forslaget om at EMD bare skal kunne overprøve nasjonale beslutninger i asyl- og immigrasjonssaker i «de mest eksepsjonelle» tilfellene. Dette ville, som vi har påpekt, i stor grad frata en meget utsatt gruppe den påkrevde internasjonale overvåkningen. Mener Rotevatn at dette er i orden? … det er misvisende når Rotevatn hevder at utkastet til erklæring ikke vil føre til en ny fordeling av ansvar. … Det hadde … vært all grunn til å forvente at Justisdepartementet offentliggjorde hva Norge mener – og aktivt gjorde Stortinget, partier og den bredere offentligheten kjent med dette. [LINK] [WEB]
Det danske formannskapet i Europarådet vil reformere den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen (EMD). Forslagene lyder uskyldige: mer delt ansvar og en bedre dialog mellom domstolen og statene. Men i realiteten ønsker den danske regjering å begrense domstolens overvåking, og øke regjeringenes politiske kontroll, særlig over saker knyttet til asyl og immigrasjon…. Kronikk i Klassekampen 27. februar 2018 [LINK] [TEXT].
The Danish Chairmanship of the Council of Europe has proposed a new installation to the reform saga of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Their recipes sound innocuous: no one can be against ‘sharing responsibility’ for human rights protection, or for improved ‘dialogue’ between the Court and states.
Many fear that in the Danish details, sovereignty will trump human rights protection. Broader trends and issues in the shadows of subsidiarity merit further attention, lest shared responsibility morphs into no one’s responsibility, and the discursive dialogue turns Melian, allowing state executives to do as they can and leave the Court to judge as it must.
Grossman, N., H. Cohen, A. Follesdal and G. Ulfstein, Eds. 2018 The Legitimacy of International Courts. Cambridge Studies on International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [D0I/LINK] [WEB].
“Constitutionalization, Not Democratization: How to Assess the Legitimacy of International Courts”. In The Legitimacy of International Courts . N. Grossman, H. Cohen, A. Follesdal & G. Ulfstein. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 307-337.
Several authors – including Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane, Gráinne De Búrca, and Nienke Grossman address the legitimacy deficits of international courts (ICs). They propose the ‘democratization’ of ICs, by which they often mean to increase their transparency, accountability or participation by various parties. There are other, better reasons to value transparency, accountability and participation concerning ICs than as building blocks of democracy, namely insofar as they contribute to valuable forms of constitutionalization of the global basic structure. Moreover, they can be valuable even when such changes do not advance democracy of the kind worth having. We should not assume that democracy is the touchstone for all legitimate modes of governance. TWe should distinguish between democratic institutions of decision-making, the normative principles that justify such institutions, and important features of such institutions that contribute to their justification, such as accountability, participation and transparency. It is only calls for the first of these – formalized institutions of decision-making – which should be considered democratication proper. [D0I/LINK] [SSRN] [WEB].