Law, Courts and Judicial Politics

Courts and legal arguments play an increasingly important role in contemporary politics, but also in the concepts of comparative politics. In spite of this fact, comparative research about courts is under-developed outside in the United States (Hönnige 2011). Scholars have mainly focused on the Judicialization hypothesis, with its narrow argument that the introduction of a constitutional court and its subsequent activity leads to a Judicialization of political decisions. Only a few articles questioned this position and claimed that Judicialization may at least be regulated by some variables, such as judicial preferences, judicial dogmas, public opinion and electoral competition (e.g. Vanberg 2002, Brouard 2009). We also rarely find substantial comparative analyses of courts and their internal institutional settings as well as their relations to other actors and institutions. The research gaps are especially problematic since courts play an important role in most concepts of comparative politics. Therefore, the field of law, courts and judicial politics needs to move ahead in the European context. In order to set a firm base for comparative research we have to fulfil a series of tasks. We need to enlarge our focus of research in regard of approaches, issues, methodology and data in a comparative manner. Biographical Information Prof. Dr. Christoph Hönnige is Professor of Comparative and German Politics at the University of Hannover. He received his PhD from the University of Potsdam after graduating from the University of Konstanz. His research interests are constitutional courts, agenda control and party discipline, and regional politics. Dr Chris Hanretty is Reader in Political Science at the University of East Anglia. He received his PhD from the European University Institut in Florence after graduating from the University of Oxford. His research interests are constitutional and supreme courts, regulatory politics, and media attention.