Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:51:55.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2014

KRZYSZTOF J. PELC
KRZYSZTOF J. PELC*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Krzysztof J. Pelc is William Dawson Scholar and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , August 2014 , pp. 547 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alter, Karen J., and Vargas, Jeannette. 2000. “Explaining Variation in the Use of European Litigation Strategies European Community Law and British Gender Equality Policy.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (4): 452–82.Google Scholar
Appleton, Arthur E. 1999. “Shrimp/turtle: Untangling the Nets.” Journal of International Economic Law 2 (3): 477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barfield, Claude E. 2001. Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization. Washington, DC: AEI Press. URL: http://books.google.ca/books?id=BQIFAQAAIAAJ Google Scholar
Bhala, R. 1998. “The Myth about Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy)” American University International Law Review 14: 845.Google Scholar
Bouwen, Pieter, and McCown, Margaret. 2007. “Lobbying versus Litigation: Political and Legal Strategies of Interest Representation in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3): 422–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, Chad P. 2002. “Why Are Safeguards Under the WTO So Unpopular? ”World Trade Review 1 (1): 47–62.Google Scholar
Burley, Anne-Marie, and Mattli, Walter. 1993. “Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration.” International Organization 47: 41.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L. 2007. “Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade.” International Organization 61: 735–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Marc L., and Reinhardt, Eric. 2006. “Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement.” World Politics 58: 446–77.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L., and Pelc, K. J.. 2009. “Does the WTO need a Permanent Body of Panelists? ”Journal of International Economic Law 12 (3): 579–94.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L., and Pelc, Krzysztof J.. 2010. “The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization.” International Organization 64: 257–79.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L., Reinhardt, Eric, and Shaffer, Gregory. 2009. “Does Legal Capacity Matter? Explaining Dispute Initiation and Antidumping Actions in the WTO.” World Trade Review 8: 559–77.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Lauderdale, Benjamin. 2010. “Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (4): 871–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Lauderdale, Benjamin E.. 2012. “The Genealogy of Law.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 329–50.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina. 2011. Why Adjudicate? Enforcing Trade Rules. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina. 2012. “WTO Adjudication as a Tool for Conflict Management.” Working Paper, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1982. “Law as Interpretation.” Critical Inquiry 9 (1): 179–200.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1989. “Social Norms and Economic Theory.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (4): 99–117.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H. and Jeon, S.. 2008. “The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent.” Social Networks 30 (1): 16–30.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T. R., Spriggs, J. F., Jeon, S. and Wahlbeck, P. J.. 2007. “Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the US Supreme Courts.” Political Analysis 15 (3): 324–46.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.Google Scholar
Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., and Schulz, H.. 1998. “The European Court of Justice, national governments, and legal integration in the European Union.” International Organization 52 (1): 149–76.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Michael, Johns, Leslie, and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2010. “Strengthening International Courts and the Early Settlement of Disputes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 54: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2005. “International Judicial Lawmaking.” University of Illinois Legal Working Paper Series, p. 26.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. L., and Steinberg, R. H.. 2008. “Negotiate or Litigate-Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on US Trade Politics.” Law and Contemporary Problems 71: 257.Google Scholar
Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., and Nordstrom, H.. 1999. “Is the Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?” London: CEPR Discussion Paper 2340.Google Scholar
Johns, Leslie, and Pelc, Krzysztof J.. 2014. “Who Gets to Be In the Room? Manipulating Participation in WTO Disputes.” International Organization 68 (3).Google Scholar
Johnstone, Ian. 2003. “Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument.” European Journal of International Law 14 (3): 437–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Leo. 1953. “A New Status Index Derived from Sociometric Analysis.” Psychometrika 18: 39–43.Google Scholar
Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2001. “The Limits of Judicial Power Trade-Environment Disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU.” Comparative Political Studies 34 (6): 622–50.Google Scholar
Kleinberg, J. M. 1999. “Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment.” Journal of the ACM (JACM) 46 (5): 604–32.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Epstein, Lee. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1018–35.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1991. “Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier.” World Politics 43 (3): 336–66.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, F. V. 1991. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge Studies I Cambridge University Press. URL: http://books.google.ca/books?id=EvI2Zv92p90C Google Scholar
Lupu, Y., and Voeten, E.. 2010. “Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights.” British Journal of Political Science 1 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
McCown, Margaret. 2003. “Re-Writing the Treaties with Precedent: Intellectual Property Rights and EU law.” Working Paper. URL: http://aei.pitt.edu/2894/ Google Scholar
Palmeter, David, and Mavroidis, Petros C.. 2004. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure. Second edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof J. 2009. “Seeking Escape: The Use of Escape Clauses in International Trade Agreements.” International Studies Quarterly 53 (2): 349–68.Google Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof. 2010. “Constraining Coercion? Legitimacy and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, 1975–2000.” International Organization 64 (1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof 2013. “Googling the WTO: What Search Engine Data Tell Us About the Political Economy of Institutions.” International Organization 67 (3): 629–55.Google Scholar
Porges, Amelia. 2003. “Settling WTO Disputes: What Do Litigation Models Tell Us?” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 19: 141–84.Google Scholar
Ragosta, John, Joneja, Navin, and Zeldovich, Mikhail. 2003. “WTO Dispute Settlement: The System Is Flawed and Must Be Fixed.” In Int’l L. Vol. 37, HeinOnline, p. 697.Google Scholar
Rosas, Allan. 2006. The European Court of Justice: Sources of Law and Methods of Interpretation. WTO Internal Only Series Cambridge University Press. URL: http://books.google.ca/books?id=zUDDPWCIqskC Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2002. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation. New International Relations Taylor & Francis. URL: http://books.google.ca/books?id=j-IIaO8_EMIC Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 1987. “Precedent.” Stanford Law Review 39 (3): 571–605.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2008. “Why Precedent in Law (and elsewhere) is not Totally (or even substantially) about Analogy.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (6): 454–60.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1996. “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1064–82.Google Scholar
Shahabuddeen, M. 2007. Precedent in the World Court. Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, New York: Cambridge University Press. URL: http://books.google.ca/books?id=sxXh9DUZOtkC Google Scholar
Simmons, B., and Guzman, A.. 2005. “Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in World Trade Organization Disputes.” Journal of Legal Studies 34: 557–98.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. 2004. “Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints.” American Journal of International Law 247–75.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Richard. 2009. ““Future of the WTO”.” Chicago Law School Faculty Blog. URL: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/02/future-of-the-wto.html Google Scholar
Stone, R. W. 2011. Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., and King, G.. 2003. “CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results.’CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venzke, Ingo. 2009. “Legal Contestation about Enemy Combatants-On the Exercise of Power in Legal Interpretation.” Journal of International Law & International Relations 5: 155.Google Scholar
Venzke, Ingo. 2012. How Interpretation Makes International Law: On Semantic Change and Normative Twists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.