Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:41:20.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(Re-)Setting the Scholarly Agenda on Transjudicial Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Ryan C. Black  and
Lee Epstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider the contributions made by Robert H. Bork's Coercing Virtue (2003) and Anne-Marie Slaughter's A New World Order (2004) to the ongoing debate over the citation of foreign law in United States courts. While empirically minded sociolegal scholars might be tempted to dismiss these books as mere op-eds, that would be a mistake. Taken with the spate of other recent work, they supply the makings of an agenda for rigorous research devoted to understanding the exchange of law among nations.

Type
Review Essay
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , Summer 2007 , pp. 789 - 807
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2007 

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

Adler, Matthew D. 1998. Can Constitutional Borrowing Be Justified: A Comment on Tushnet. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1:350–57.Google Scholar
Alford, Roger P. 2006. Four Mistakes in the Debate on “Outsourcing Authority.” Albany Law Review 69:653–81.Google Scholar
Alito, Samuel L. 2006. Summary of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Online at CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/10/alito.answers/index.html#foreign (accessed March 3, 2007).Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. 2003. Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven G. Forthcoming. “A Shining City on a Hill”: American Exceptionalism and the Supreme Court's Practice of Relying on Foreign Law. Boston University Law Review.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven G., and Presser, David C. 2006. Reintroducing Circuit Riding: A Timely Proposal. Minnesota Law Review 90:1386–416.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven G., and Zimdahl, Stephanie Dotson. 2005. The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision. William and Mary Law Review 47:743–909.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1985. The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts. American Political Science Review 79:178–93.Google Scholar
Carozza, Paolo G. 2003. “My Friend Is a Stranger”: The Death Penalty and the Global Ius Commune of Human Rights. Texas Law Review 81:1031–88.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., and Gulati, G. Mitu. 2006. Bias in Judicial Citations: A New Window into the Behavior of Judges? NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 06-29, available at SSRN: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=913663 (accessed April 22, 2007).Google Scholar
Clark, David S. 1994. The Use of Comparative Law by American Courts. American Journal of Comparative Law 42 (Supplement): 23–40.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 2000. Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead. Political Research Quarterly 53:625–61.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 2003. Constitutional Borrowing and Nonborrowing. I-Con: International Journal of Constitutional Law 1:196–223.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Martin, Andrew D. 2001. The Supreme Court as a Strategic National Policymaker. Emory Law Journal 50:583–612.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G. 2007. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments, 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1991a. Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions. Yale Law Journal 101:331–455.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. 1991b. Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game. California Law Review 79:613–84.Google Scholar
Fontana, David. 2001. Refined Comparativism in Constitutional Law. UCLA Law Review 49:539–623.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs, James F. II, Jeon, Sangick, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. Forthcoming. Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Supreme Court Precedents. Political Analysis.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M., Kagan, Robert A., Cartwright, Bliss, and Wheeler, Stanton. 1981. State Supreme Courts: A Century of Style and Citation. Stanford Law Review 33:773–818.Google Scholar
Goldman, Jerry, and Johnson, Timothy R. 2005. Exploring the Use of Foreign Law and Foreign Sources in the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision Making Process. Paper presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review. 2001. Developments—International Criminal Law: The International Judicial Dialogue: When Domestic Constitutional Courts Join the Conversation. Harvard Law Review 114:2049–73.Google Scholar
Helmholz, R. H. 1990. Continental Law and Common Law: Historical Strangers or Companions? Duke Law Journal 1990:1207–28.Google Scholar
Helmholz, R. H. 1992. The Use of Civil Law in Post-Revolutionary American Jurisprudence. Tulane Law Review 6:1649–84.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004a. Globalization, Courts, and Judicial Power: The Political Origins of the New Constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 11:71–108.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004b. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoeflich, M. H. 1997. Roman and Civil Law and the Development of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in the Nineteenth Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C. 1999. Ambivalent Resistance and Comparative Constitutionalism: Opening Up the Conversation on “Proportionality,” Rights and Federalism. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1:583–639.Google Scholar
Jackson, Vicki C., and Tushnet, Mark, eds. 2002. Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1997. Statistical Graphics for Univariate and Bivariate Data Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2005. Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Law & Society Review 39:349–77.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. 2006. The Supreme Court and International Relations Theory. Albany Law Review 69:771–99.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 1954. The Authority of Authority: What the California Supreme Court Cited in 1950. Stanford Law Review 6:613–73.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 1977. Toward a Theory of Citations: An Empirical Study of Citation Practice in the California Supreme Court in 1950, 1960, 1970. University of Southern California Law Review 50:381–428.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Von Nessen, Paul E. 1992. The Use of American Precedents by the High Court of Australia, 1901–1987. Adelaide Law Review 14:181–218.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Sandra Day. 2002. Keynote Address. American Society of International Law Proceedings 96:348–50.Google Scholar
Roberts, John G. 2005. Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. New York Times, available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/politics/politicsspecial1/13text-roberts.html (accessed March 3, 2007).Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel. 2001. Constitutional Migration and the Bounds of Comparative Analysis. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 58:67–83.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin S. 2006. Outsourcing American Law. Remarks given at the American Enterprise Institute on February 21, 2006, retrieved from the Federal News Service on Lexis on April 22, 2007.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1994. A Typology of Transjudicial Communication. University of Richmond Law Review 29 (1): 99–137.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004a. Courting the World. Foreign Policy Issue 141:78–79.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004b. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 2006. The Original United States Supreme Court Judicial Database 1953–2004 Terms. Michigan: State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, and Ellman, Lisa Michelle. 2004. Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation. Virginia Law Review 90:301–54.Google Scholar
Zaring, David. 2006. The Use of Foreign Decisions by Federal Courts: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3:297–331.Google Scholar

Case Cited

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893).Google Scholar