The Politics of Law and Courts

Domestic and international courts frequently rule on salient legal and political questions. While their rulings may constrain elected officials and bureaucrats, courts are also vulnerable to attacks on their independence and reliant on other actors to give force to their judgments. This Section brings together scholars studying the politics of judicial decision-making and appointments, the reasons and consequences of judicialization, legal mobilization by actors seeking societal changes, compliance with judicial decisions, dialogue between national and supranational courts, and courts’ increasing use of digital technology. Panel 1 Quantifying Judicial Impact: Selection, Process, and Authority (Chairs: Benjamin Engst and Louisa Boulaziz) This panel addresses critical questions on judicial power and legitimacy: Why are some individuals appointed to the bench while others are not? To what extent do judicial procedures influence judicial outcomes? Why is judicial authority often overwhelmingly perceived as legitimate? We invite papers that examine these topics quantitatively and comparatively. Addressing these issues is essential to understanding the often unquestioned acceptance of judicial decisions and court’s societal influence. Panel 2 AI and justice (Chair: Monika Glavina) Recent technological developments have forced courts to integrate digital technologies in their daily work. The growing use of AI in justice have reignited discussions around courts’ preparedness, the perks and potential disruptions of such technologies. This panel invites paper submission exploring the uses and associated perks, pitfalls, and challenges of the use of digital technologies in justice, including the questions of (dis)trust in “robot judges”. Panel 3 Juridification in the welfare sector (Chair: Karin Leijon) How do juridification processes influence the discretion of welfare professions and, by extension, their ability to provide welfare services of high quality? Juridification, the transfer of power to courts and court-like actors and the expansion of legal rules into new areas, is a central feature of contemporary welfare governance. According to previous research, juridification, such as judicial review, individual rights, and detailed rules, can weaken and strengthen welfare professions' discretion. This panel invites papers that study juridification in different welfare sectors and how professions respond to such processes. Panel 4: The Role of Courts in Shaping Asylum and Migration Policies (Chairs: Madalina Moraru and Cristina Dallara) This panel will examine the critical role of courts in asylum and migration governance worldwide. We aim to investigate how courts influence access to asylum, when deciding on issues such as, inter alia: pushbacks, externalization, and digitalization policies. Additionally, the panel aims to explore the impact of courts on Refugee Status Determination, the civil and social rights of refugees, and return policies. By analyzing both top-down and bottom-up perspectives, the panel seeks to understand the complex ways in which courts intervene in various aspects of asylum and migration law. Panel 5: Agents of legal mobilization (Chairs: Stefan Thierse and Yulia Khalikova) Research on legal mobilization has focused mainly on social movements, associations and “weak interests”. By contrast, business and other “strong” interests are relatively understudied. The proposed panel invites contributions that study lawmobilizing agents in national, European and international courts. We welcome in particular studies that unpack intra-organizational decision-making dynamics and/or investigate interactions between disputing parties, lawyers, judges and policy-makers. Panel 6: Judicial and Meta-Judicial Remedies in European Shared Administration (Chairs: Salvo Nicolosi and Mira Scholten) Drawing from insights relating to various EU agencies, this panel will shed light on the complex system of internal and external remedies created to respond to a demand for justice that the EU judiciary alone can no longer meet. The contours and different elements of such a system, including the functioning of the Boards of Appeal, the internal complaint mechanisms, the role of the European Ombudsman, democratic scrutiny and the limits of the European judiciary thus deserve further investigation. Panel 7: Unfolding judicial dialogue in the Europe (Chairs: Urszula Jaremba and Jasper Krommendijk) Judicial dialogue in Europe has been a focal point of academic discourse for long. Scholars have extensively examined the reasons why national judges engage in judicial dialogue with supranational courts, and the constitutional dynamics behind those processes. Despite this extensive body of research, new issues continue to emerge. This panel considers the latest academic insights into the dynamics of judicial dialogue in Europe which includes examining the evolving reasons behind national courts’ engagement with the ECJ and the ECtHR, the impact of recent jurisprudence, and the broader implications for effective judicial protection. Panel 8: (Un)Packing Courts and Judicial Resurgence (Chairs: David Kosař and Katarína Šipulová) The proliferation of court-packing wars has recently stirred up a lot of controversy. Yet, the 2023 Polish election showed the urgency behind a new vexing question: what to do with packed courts once the political actors who staffed them lose power? (How) Can courts be legitimately unpacked? Should the content of decision-making, judicial behaviour or the personal independence of packed judges be considered? Addressing these questions, this panel analyses the normative underpinnings of unpacking in the context of global examples of court-packing. Panel 9: Public authorities’ compliance with court rulings (Chair: Øyvind Stiansen) Courts play a significant role in shaping public policy and influencing political outcomes but court rulings are not self-implementing. The impact of judicial decision-making depends on how public sector actors (politicians, government agencies, bureaucrats) respond to court rulings. This panel invites papers that explore public sector actors' compliance with court rulings from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. For instance, what factors can explain why public authorities swiftly comply with some court rulings while the implementation of other rulings is significantly delayed? S Panel 10: Courts and Public Support (Chair: Cordula Weber) Public support is considered to be central for courts to defend against political interference and to enhance compliance with their decisions. In view of the rise of populist governments worldwide, the risk of political attacks on judicial independence increases – hence it is of utmost importance to gain deeper knowledge on the input and output factors of public support: Which factors influence the level of public support enjoyed by a court? What can courts themselves do to increase their level of public support?