The Road Not Taken

Comparative International Judicial Dissent

Bibliographic Data

ID9545429
AuthorsJeffrey L Dunoff (0009-0007-6093-332X, Texas A&M University School of Law, corresponding author), Mark A Pollack (0000-0002-3990-8337, Université Jean Monnet)
Year2022
Volume116
Issue2
Pages340-396
Publication date2022-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of International Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/ajil.2022.1
OpenAlexW4205118911
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited7

This Article analyzes long-standing disagreements over dissent's effect on judicial legitimacy, independence, and legal doctrine by undertaking the first comparative study of dissent practices across three leading tribunals, the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice. Surprisingly, we find that each of the central claims in debates over dissent at international courts is mistaken. We find that the presence of dissents has little systematic impact on legitimacy; the key factor instead is patterns of dissent that suggest bias among international judges. We find that the effects of dissent on judicial independence are mediated by a third factor, namely the length and renewability of judicial terms of office. Finally, we find that dissents promote law development, but little evidence that today's dissents form the basis for future majority rulings. We then outline a research agenda to examine the impact of dissent at the larger universe of international courts

Dissent · Doctrine · Economic Justice · International court · International law · Judicial Independence · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Public international law · Supreme court · European and International Law Studies · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law

Tools

Open DOI