Legitimacy and lawmaking

A tale of three international courts

Laurence R. Helfer, Karen Alter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This Article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts (ICs) and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts -the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The CJEU is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court's legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more cautious, but there is little to suggest that this caution has enhanced the legitimacy of either court. The ATJ has avoided serious challenges from governments, but its rulings have had little political impact. Conversely, the ECCJ's circumspection has not shielded it from political opposition to its adjudication of clearly-established human rights. This pattern is at odds with the oft-voiced conventional wisdom that expansive judicial lawmaking undermines judicial legitimacy. Our modest goal in this Article is to problematize that claim and to posit an alternative hypothesis -that ICs spark legitimacy challenges due to the domestic political effects of their decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are expansionist.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)479-503
Number of pages25
JournalTheoretical Inquiries in Law
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

legitimacy
court of justice
justice
political impact
regional integration
wisdom
grant
doctrine
opposition
human rights
community
ECOWAS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

@article{e8fdee867e384df3b7334b7f02689fe3,
title = "Legitimacy and lawmaking: A tale of three international courts",
abstract = "This Article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts (ICs) and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts -the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The CJEU is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court's legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more cautious, but there is little to suggest that this caution has enhanced the legitimacy of either court. The ATJ has avoided serious challenges from governments, but its rulings have had little political impact. Conversely, the ECCJ's circumspection has not shielded it from political opposition to its adjudication of clearly-established human rights. This pattern is at odds with the oft-voiced conventional wisdom that expansive judicial lawmaking undermines judicial legitimacy. Our modest goal in this Article is to problematize that claim and to posit an alternative hypothesis -that ICs spark legitimacy challenges due to the domestic political effects of their decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are expansionist.",
author = "Helfer, {Laurence R.} and Karen Alter",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1515/til-2013-024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "479--503",
journal = "Theoretical Inquiries in Law",
issn = "1565-3404",
publisher = "Berkeley Electronic Press",
number = "2",

}

Legitimacy and lawmaking : A tale of three international courts. / Helfer, Laurence R.; Alter, Karen.

In: Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.01.2013, p. 479-503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legitimacy and lawmaking

T2 - A tale of three international courts

AU - Helfer, Laurence R.

AU - Alter, Karen

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - This Article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts (ICs) and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts -the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The CJEU is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court's legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more cautious, but there is little to suggest that this caution has enhanced the legitimacy of either court. The ATJ has avoided serious challenges from governments, but its rulings have had little political impact. Conversely, the ECCJ's circumspection has not shielded it from political opposition to its adjudication of clearly-established human rights. This pattern is at odds with the oft-voiced conventional wisdom that expansive judicial lawmaking undermines judicial legitimacy. Our modest goal in this Article is to problematize that claim and to posit an alternative hypothesis -that ICs spark legitimacy challenges due to the domestic political effects of their decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are expansionist.

AB - This Article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts (ICs) and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts -the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The CJEU is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court's legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more cautious, but there is little to suggest that this caution has enhanced the legitimacy of either court. The ATJ has avoided serious challenges from governments, but its rulings have had little political impact. Conversely, the ECCJ's circumspection has not shielded it from political opposition to its adjudication of clearly-established human rights. This pattern is at odds with the oft-voiced conventional wisdom that expansive judicial lawmaking undermines judicial legitimacy. Our modest goal in this Article is to problematize that claim and to posit an alternative hypothesis -that ICs spark legitimacy challenges due to the domestic political effects of their decisions, regardless of whether those decisions are expansionist.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899931370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899931370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1515/til-2013-024

DO - 10.1515/til-2013-024

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 479

EP - 503

JO - Theoretical Inquiries in Law

JF - Theoretical Inquiries in Law

SN - 1565-3404

IS - 2

ER -