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, Dyevre 2010). 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 2001, Brouard 2009, Hanretty 2012, 2013). We also rarely find substantial comparative analyses of courts and their internal institutional settings as well as their relations to other actors and institutions. 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. The Section therefore offers seven Panels covering these aspects: (1) international and regional courts, (2) courts in democratic systems, (3) ordinary courts, (4) policy agendas, (5) policy agendas, and (6) judges and the regulatory state. Panel (7) is explicitly dedicated to methods and data with a focus on textual analysis. Panel 1: International Courts and Transnational Legal Institutions and Processes Panel Chair: Dr. Juan Antonio Mayoral, University of Copenhagen Since the end of the Second World War, various international or regional courts like the ECJ, the ECHR or the ICJ have been created. The Panel will gather Papers studying international or regional Courts and dealing with various issues like institutional settings, institutional building, relationships between international courts and other actors, decision-making, jurisdiction and jurisprudence. Panel 2: Courts in Democratic Systems: Judiciary and Inter-branch Relations Panel Chair: Josephine DeJaegere, University of Antwerp Provided that constitutional review spreads across the democratic systems we need to systematically test the various approaches and theories developed for the US Supreme Court. We expect the Papers to follow this perspective; they may comparatively investigate a number of issues such as institutional settings, intra-court decision-making, and the relation between courts and other actors. Papers dealing with institutional change are also very welcome. Panel 3: Ordinary Courts: Decision-making and Policy Implementation Panel Chair: Konstantin Stern, University of Potsdam European research mainly focuses on the analysis of international and national high and constitutional courts. Beyond these apex courts there is a large body of ordinary courts which have a strong impact on the implementation of national and transnational legislation. These include, but are not limited to, immigration courts, tax courts, and labour rights courts, all of which deal with politically controversial issues. These courts interpret and apply legislation in concrete cases in disputes. In doing so, they have a lot leeway to shape final policy outcomes. Panel 4: The Policy Agenda of Courts Panel Chair. Dr. Sylvain Brouard, Sciences Po Paris High courts are usually perceived as important players in democratic political systems in the age of judicialization. This Panel seeks to discuss court policy agendas from a comparative perspective using the Comparative Policy Agenda framework. The Panel aims to discuss theoretical and methodological issues related to analysing judicial policy agendas over time and comparatively. Additionally, this Panel also invites Papers dealing with policy oriented case studies. Panel 5: Law and Courts in Transitional and Non-democratic Systems Panel Chair : Dr. Cristina Parau, University of Oxford To understand the role of constitutional courts and judicial politics in different political systems accurately, we need to expand our knowledge beyond democratic systems. Scholars started to explore the role of courts in authoritarian regimes. Nevertheless further discussions about the issues and approaches are necessary as well comparative studies. Beyond more investigations are necessary about the roles played by courts in the democratization process as well as the democratic break-down. Panel 6: Judges and the Regulatory State Panel Chair: Dr. Chris Hanretty, University of East Anglia Two important processes have affected modern states over the past thirty years: the shift towards a regulatory state, and a process of judicialization. The regulatory state was designed to be more agile and more efficient. Often, decisions were entrusted to narrowly technocratic bodies insulated from normal political pressures. Now, however, the decisions of these bodies are increasingly being challenged in the courts. This Panel invites Papers which explore the relationship between the technical expertise of regulators, the workload pressures of judges, and the financial resources of litigators. The Panel is co-sponsored by the ECPR Standing Group on Regulatory Politics. Panel 7: Data and Methods in Court Research Panel Chair: Prof. Dr. Christoph Hönnige, University of Hannover The methodology of comparison is a key factor for this research agenda. We need to carefully explore the various ways of analysing and comparing judicial politics. Beyond the traditional qualitative and quantitative divide we wish to underline the challenge of analysing judicial decisions written in different languages. Data collection and standardisation is an essential condition for successful comparative research. A special focus will lie on the analysis of judicial text corpora. 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 Institute in Florence after graduating from the University of Oxford. His research interests are constitutional and supreme courts, regulatory politics, and media attention.