Affiliation:
1. Fordham University School of Law , United States
2. University of Georgia , United States
Abstract
Abstract
What effect does judicializing international commitments have on incentives to comply with international law? We study this question using experiments embedded in a survey of the American public. We find that non-compliance signals from an international court work precisely as theories of non-compliance anticipate, raising perceptions of legal obligation and support for returning to compliance relative to non-compliance signals from foreign state parties (i.e., the “victims” in a given dispute). At the same time, we find that signals from courts are no more (and no less) effective in generating public support for returning to compliance than identical non-compliance signals sent by international organizations or domestic political elites. These results suggest that courts are not uniquely positioned to shape the politics of compliance and that the often-rancorous debates over institutional design may be just as much about conflicts over institutional control as they are about conflicts over institutional forms or labels.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference65 articles.
1. Do International Courts Enhance Compliance with International Law?;Alter;Review of Asian and Pacific Studies,2003
2. Backlash against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences;Alter;European Journal of International Law,2016
3. Theorizing the Judicialization of International Relations;Alter;International Studies Quarterly,2019
4. Promises or Policies? An Experimental Analysis of International Agreements and Audience Reactions;Chaudoin;International Organization,2014
5. On Compliance;Chayes;International Organization,1993