Book contents
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 ‘Missing in Action? The Rare Voice of International Courts in Domestic Politics’
- Part I
- 2 What Can Financial Markets Tell Us about International Courts and Deterrence?
- 3 The Strasbourg Court and Domestic Judicial Politics
- 4 It’s a Good Idea … Isn’t It? The Impact of Complementarity at the International Criminal Court on Domestic Law, Politics and Perceptions of Sovereignty
- 5 Rights-Protecting iCourts: The Curious Case of the OP-ICESCR
- 6 Reassembling the French State via Human Rights: Between Human Rights Internationalism and Political Sovereignism
- 7 Impact through Trust: The CJEU as a Trust-enhancing Institution
- Part II
- Index
- References
7 - Impact through Trust: The CJEU as a Trust-enhancing Institution
from Part I
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Studies on International Courts and Tribunals
- International Courts and Domestic Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 ‘Missing in Action? The Rare Voice of International Courts in Domestic Politics’
- Part I
- 2 What Can Financial Markets Tell Us about International Courts and Deterrence?
- 3 The Strasbourg Court and Domestic Judicial Politics
- 4 It’s a Good Idea … Isn’t It? The Impact of Complementarity at the International Criminal Court on Domestic Law, Politics and Perceptions of Sovereignty
- 5 Rights-Protecting iCourts: The Curious Case of the OP-ICESCR
- 6 Reassembling the French State via Human Rights: Between Human Rights Internationalism and Political Sovereignism
- 7 Impact through Trust: The CJEU as a Trust-enhancing Institution
- Part II
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter gives an original response to one of the central questions asked in this book: to what extent does the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) impact domestic political and legal systems and what are its implications? More specifically, how might the CJEU increase the impact of its rulings and legal mandates in national judiciaries and legal systems? This question is crucial if we understand that national courts are the key decentralised enforcers of the European Union (EU) law responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of EU law and the rulings and mandates imposed by the Court. EU scholars have already offered several legalist and institutionalist responses to why national courts participate in this process of legal integration in the EU and, most importantly, why they follow the mandates and rulings from the CJEU. This chapter innovates in this regard by introducing trust between judges as a new mechanism for enhancing the cooperation and compliance by national courts with the CJEU jurisprudence and EU legal mandates. The chapter describes the conditions under which national judges trust the CJEU to identify how the Court can promote trust in its role as a supreme adjudicator in the EU law system.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Courts and Domestic Politics , pp. 160 - 178Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Alter, K. J. (2001). Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, C., Sapir, E. V. & Zapryanova, G. (2012). Trust in the Institutions of the European Union: A Cross-Country Examination. European Integration Online Papers, 16(2), 1–39. Published online: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2012-008.pdf.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S. (2014). Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Which Role for the European Networks of Judges? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 11(2), 163–81.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S. (2015). The European Judicial Training Network and Its Role in the Strategy for the Europeanization of National Judges. International Journal for Court Administration, 7(1), 59–67.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. & Risse, T. (2015). Dysfunctional States Institutions, Trust, and Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood. Regulation and Governance, 29(2), 135–51.Google Scholar
Caldeira, G. A & Gibson, J. L. (1995). The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 356–76.Google Scholar
Carrubba, C. J. & Murrah, L. (2005). Legal Integration and Use of the Preliminary Ruling Process in the European Union. International Organization, 59(2), 399–418.Google Scholar
Ceka, B. & Sojka, A. (2016). Loving It but Not Feeling It Yet? The State of European Identity after the Eastern Enlargement. European Union Politics, 17(3), 482–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claes, M. & De Visser, M. (2012). Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues in European Judicial Networks. Utrecht Law Review, 8(2), 100–14.Google Scholar
Gambetta, D. (2000). Can We Trust Trust? In Gambetta, D., ed., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 213–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1995). The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 459–89.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1998). Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 63–91.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A. & Baird, V. A. (1998). On the Legitimacy of National High Courts. The American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A. & Spence, L. K. (2003). Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–67.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, A. (2005). ‘Learning to Trust the European Court of Justice – Lessons from the German Case’. In EUSA Ninth Biennial International Conference, March 31–April 2. Published online: http://aei.pitt.edu/3149Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. (2013). The Effectiveness of International Adjudicators. In Romano, C. P. R., Alter, K. J. & Avgerou, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 464–82.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. & Slaughter, A. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107, 273–392.Google Scholar
Hinarejos, A. (2009). Judicial Control in the European Union: Reforming Jurisdiction in the Intergovernmental Pillars, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S., Widdop, S., Fitzgerald, R., Yordanova, M. & Galev, T. (2011). Developing European Indicators of Trust in Justice. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 267–85.Google Scholar
Keck, S. & Karelaia, N. (2012). Does Competition Foster Trust? The Role of Tournament Incentives. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 204–28.Google Scholar
Lenaerts, K. (2004). ‘In the Union We Trust’: Trust-enhancing Principles of Community Law. Common Market Law Review, 41, 317–43.Google Scholar
Leron, N. (2014). ‘The Constitutional Governance of Judges in the EU: The invention of a communicative mode of regulation of constitutional conflict risks’, ECPR General Conference. Conference paper: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/93123692-86c9-4886-9d8c-4d56e7d589ca.pdfGoogle Scholar
Maduro, M. P. (2003). Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action. In Walker, N., ed., Sovereignty in Transition, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 501–37.Google Scholar
Maduro, M. P. (2007). Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Mattli, W. & Slaughter, A. (1998). Revisiting the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52(1), 177–209.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, (3), 709–34.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2015). The Politics of Judging EU Law: A New Approach to National Courts in the Legal Integration of Europe, Madrid: Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investigaciones.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2016a). In the CJEU Judges Trust: A New Approach in the Judicial Construction of Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(3), 551–68.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2016b). ‘Does Trust Enhance National Courts’ Cooperation with the CJEU?’ iCourts Workshop: Trust, Social Capital and Networks: A Different Perspective on International Courts. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A., Jaremba, U. & Nowak, T. (2014). Creating EU Law Judges: The Role of Generational Differences, Legal Education and Judicial Career Paths in National Judges’ Assessment Regarding EU Law Knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1120–41.Google Scholar
Montinola, G. R. (2009). Proxies and Experience as Bases of Trust in Courts. In K. Cook, S., Levi, M. & Hardin, R., eds., Whom Can We Trust? How Groups, Networks and Institutions Make Trust Possible, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 286–307.Google Scholar
Nowak, T., Amtenbrink, F., Hertogh, M. & Wissink, M. (2011). National Judges as European Union Judges: Knowledge, Experiences and Attitudes of Lower Court Judges in Germany and the Netherlands. National Law in a Global Society, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Nyikos, S. A. (2003). The Preliminary Reference Process: National Court Implementation, Changing Opportunity Structures and Litigant Desistment. European Union Politics, 4, 397–419.Google Scholar
Paunio, E. (2010). Conflict, Power, and Understanding – Judicial Dialogue between the CJEU and National Courts. No Foundations: Journal of Extreme Legal Positivism, 4, 5–24.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (2012). The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint. California Law Review, 100(3), 519–56.Google Scholar
Quintelier, E., Verhaegen, S. & Hooghe, M. (2014). The Intergenerational Transmission of European Identity: The Role of Gender and Discussion within Families. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(5), 1103–19.Google Scholar
Ramos Romeu, F. (2002). Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts. Testing Three Models of Judicial Behavior. Global Jurist Frontiers, 2(1), 1–52.Google Scholar
Ramos Romeu, F. (2006). Law and Politics in the Application of EC Law: Spanish Courts and the CJEU 1986–2000. Common Market Law Review, 43, 395–421.Google Scholar
Rompf, S. A. (2014). Trust and Rationality: An Integrative Framework for Trust Research, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. & Brunell, T. L. (1998). The European Court and the National Courts: A Statistical Analysis of Preliminary References, 1961–95. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 66–97.Google Scholar
Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–48.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Voeten, E. (2013). Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14(2), 411–36.Google Scholar
Walker, N. (2002). The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. The Modern Law Review, 65, 317–59.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1994). A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and Its Interlocutors. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4), 510–34.Google Scholar
Wind, M., Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2009). The Uneven Legal Push for Europe: Questioning Variation When National Courts Go to Europe. European Union Politics, 10(1), 63–88.Google Scholar