The politics of law and courts

The power and influence of international and domestic courts increased significantly in recent decades. Today, they limit salient government policies, restrict the power of strong executives, and decide on central rules of the political game or on fundamental rights. At the same time, the interest of political actors to hold courts accountable rose, and with it the need of courts to explain their decisions to different audiences and to build trust. This section invites scholars to explore how courts navigate through these challenges. 1 Courts, compliance and policy-making Courts are frequently adjudicating questions with important implications for public policy, ranging from the appropriate responses to climate change to balancing individual and minority rights against majoritarian decisions. Yet, courts are inherently weak institutions that rely on other actors to give force to their decisions. Under what conditions can courts influence policy against the will of other political actors? This panel invites papers addressing this question by investigating compliance with specific judgments or by considering judgments’ broader "radiating" effects. 2 Judicial decision-making and courts as accountability forums: the role of judges, citizens and the state Courts play a significant role in shaping public policy. However, courts are at the same time influenced by their political context. This panel invites papers that focus on either the factors that may influence judicial behaviour on the bench or how judicial decision-making impacts society, including but not limited to the role of courts in holding political and administrative actors accountable. For instance, how do courts employ legal accountability mechanisms and what are the implications for democratic legitimacy? 3 (Dis)Trust in, between and within courts: Exploring the drivers and effects of (dis)trust Trust is indispensable for generating acceptance, compliance and cooperation with political actors and organizations. This also applies to courts even though trust in courts has received less attention than other actors. When trust is low or distrust is present, compliance, cooperation, and legitimacy are weak or absent. This panel aims to stimulate a dialogue on the role of (dis)trust in, between, and within courts by exploring the drivers and effects of trust or distrust, and identifying ways of (re)building trust. 4 Courts and their audiences Courts stand as the focal point of justice, hosting and interacting with a diverse set of audiences. Inside the courtroom, judges, lawyers, parties to the case, and spectators convene, each playing a distinct role in the trial. Outside the courthouse, academics, journalists, pundits, and other intermediaries, online and offline, comment on and interpret the work of courts. Further, civil society interacts with courts through legal mobilisation. This panel examines the interaction between courts, judges, and their various audiences. 5 Governance by informality: Informal designs at domestic and supranational courts Although courts might seem like overly formal institutions, in fact, both courts and judges are subject to informality – from bureaucratic practices and behavioural norms to clientelism or patronage. This has triggered increased scholarly interest in recent years. This panel focuses on the role of informality in the design of judicial governance and aims to understand what shapes the discrepancy between de iure and de facto dimensions of judicial independence, accountability, or power distribution in practice. 6 Strategic actors in the legal field Judges and other actors in the legal field are often understood as strategic actors, who make decisions in pursuit of specific goals. These range from personal political attitudes to personal or institutional preferences. The concept remains vague and unexplored. The panel acknowledges the achievements of strategic approaches but would like to contribute to its refinement. We welcome both theoretical-conceptual and empirical papers and encourage papers to explain their assumptions and premises about strategic considerations. 7 International courts: Taming or fuelling democratic decay Worldwide, we have witnessed illiberal impulses and democratic decay. While not new, today, more than ever before, these dynamics are occurring in the context of a wide array of international courts (ICs). This raises questions about what role ICs have in taming or fuelling the dynamics of democratic decay, which will be addressed in this panel: Do ICs restrain illiberal impulses, and if so, when? Or, do they reinforce the cleavages of democracies and non-democracies? 8 Judicial politics in non-democracies Modern autocrats rely on law and legal institutions to enhance or sustain their power. Courts have also been instrumental in the processes of democratic backsliding – supporting state reforms in some cases but also actively resisting in others. This panel invites papers examining judicial politics in non-democratic regimes, including judicial decision-making, interaction between courts and other political actors, legal mobilization, and attacks on judicial independence. 9 Promoting sustainable rule of law Research on the rule of law has centred on how to respond to the ongoing crisis plaguing countries and the EU. But what makes the rule of law resilient and sustainable? This panel discusses the importance of a strong and enduring rule of law for social, economic, and legal sustainability. It invites papers that seek to identify actionable strategies and advocate for legal reforms that can drive a lasting development of the rule of law. 10 Author-meets-the-critic: Perceptions of Judicial Self-Governance in Europe The search for more judicial independence manifested in the recent rise of judicial councils, which lately faced significant political backlash. This panel argues that any change in the institutional model needs to be accompanied by a change in role conception. Panellists will critically discuss the forthcoming book Perceptions of Judicial Self-Governance in Europe (CUP), and explore how judges, politicians and lawyers view the relationship between the three branches of power.