Crafting the language of borders
The European Court of Justice's strategic opinion writing in rights cases
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7907317 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Maureen Stobb (0000-0003-2865-3815, Department of Political Science and International Studies Georgia Southern University Statesboro Georgia USA, corresponding author), Jamie Scalera‐Elliott (Department of Political Science and International Studies Georgia Southern University Statesboro Georgia USA) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 27-44 |
| Publication date | 2024-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/lapo.12227 |
| OpenAlex | W4382403912 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 39 |
Courts, particularly those with the power of constitutional review, engage in supplementary lawmaking. Like other policymakers, judges seek the proper interpretation and implementation of their decisions. Research on the United States of America (U.S.) Supreme Court indicates that it strategically alters its language to obtain better compliance, but little is known about whether international courts do the same. We test the generalizability of these findings by examining the opinion‐writing tactics of another powerful court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a highly salient policy area, citizenship rights. Like the U.S. High Court, the CJEU must guide judges in interpreting constitutional law. In the European Union (EU) context, this entails directing Member State judges through the preliminary reference procedure, a form of indirect supranational judicial review. We expect that the CJEU will carefully craft the language of its opinions to obtain the cooperation of national judges in this area of law. Our findings indicate that, like the U.S. Supreme Court, the CJEU strategically alters its words in anticipation of this key audience's reactions to its decisions, and that the court's strategies may undermine EU citizens' rights in the long term
Economics · European union · European Union law · Lawmaking · Legislature · Majority opinion · Political science · Supreme court · European and International Law Studies · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law
The impact of the United States Supreme Court
Governing with Judges
Courts
Judges and Their Audiences
The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court
The Transformation of Europe
Establishing the Supremacy of European Law
IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts
How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review
European Governance of Citizenship and Nationality
Freedom of movement, social rights and residence-based conditionality in the European Union
Can International Courts Enhance Domestic Judicial Review? Separation of Powers and the European Court of Justice
ECJ Judges read the morning papers. Explaining the turnaround of European citizenship jurisprudence
The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union
Speaking Law to Power
The European Court of Justice, State Noncompliance, and the Politics of Override
Disagreeable Rhetoric and the Prospect of Public Opposition
The Use of Rhetorical Sources by the U.S. Supreme Court
We Are the World
How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court
Constitutional Courts and Parliamentary Democracy
Courts and Compliance in International Regulatory Regimes
The Supreme Court and Opinion Content
The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions
Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty
Europe Before the Court
Strategic interaction among courts within the preliminary reference process – Stage 1
The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty
The Psychological Meaning of Words
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |