Comparing High Court Policy Agendas

Abstract

In an age of judicialization, high courts are important political players. Existing research generally falls into one of two camps. Quantitative studies offer broad, longitudinal perspectives on judicial agendas; but, because they categorize judicial decisions in terms of the legal issues, these studies fail to connect their findings to wider policymaking processes or they ignore policy content altogether. By contrast, scholars who are interested in policy outcomes typically bring qualitative methods to bear on singular decisions or specific policy areas. They generate important insights but fail to facilitate broader generalizations about the policymaking role of courts. Thus, we still know little about high court agendas from a public policy perspective. Leverage on a number of important questions can be gained by shifting the analysis from legal to policy-oriented categories and treating the judiciary as a distinct policy agenda. A policy-oriented approach also facilitates comparison across countries with different legal systems. This panel discusses High Court Policy Agendas from a comparative perspective using the Comparative Policy Agenda framework. Data are now available for several high courts, including those of Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The panel discusses theoretical and methodological issues related to analysing judicial policy agendas over time and comparatively. Among others, papers will address the following questions: How do judicial agendas relate to the policy agendas of legislatures, executives, and the media? How responsive are high court agendas to policy input from other agendas – or how independent are high court agendas from a policy point of view? What factors, such as constitutional reforms or rules concerning access to courts, shape the policy content of judicial agendas? And, how do the agendas of high courts compare? Do they differ in terms of their policy content? Are some judicial agendas more dynamic than others? What explains observed differences?

Title	Details
Comparing High Court Policy Agendas: France, Canada and Germany	View Paper Details
Legal Mobilisation, Policy Input and Responsiveness on the Canadian Supreme Court 1987-2010	View Paper Details
Comparing High Court Policy Agendas: Australia and New Zealand	View Paper Details