Burchardt: The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework

Dana Burchardt (WZB Berlin Social Science Center) has published The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework (Hart Publishing 2026). Here's the abstract:

Why do some international courts wield broad authority while others face pushback or fade into irrelevance? This book provides novel theoretical and empirical insights into this question. It offers a fresh, interdisciplinary perspective on the authority of international courts, drawing from law, political science and behavioural research.

It develops, in Part I, a theoretical model and analytical framework for assessing these questions. The model explains how authority relationships between courts and their audiences – such as states, NGOs, individual applicants, and domestic courts – are formed, maintained, or contested. In Part II, the book applies this analytical framework to in-depth case studies of two selected international courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. These studies not only provide deeper insights into the authority of these courts but also demonstrate how the analytical framework can be applied to other international courts to generate an enhanced understanding of international court authority.

The book sheds new light on why some courts enjoy enduring authority and others face pushback, offering powerful tools for understanding the behaviour of international courts and their audiences.

Torres Pérez: Balancing International Judicial Independence: Legal and Political Constraints in Regional Courts

Aida Torres Pérez (Pompeu Fabra Univ. - Law) has published Balancing International Judicial Independence: Legal and Political Constraints in Regional Courts (Oxford Univ. Press 2026). Here's the abstract:

Regional courts increasingly shape domestic law and policy, raising pressing questions about their democratic legitimacy. Balancing International Judicial Independence offers a groundbreaking framework for reconciling judicial independence with legitimate checks on judicial power. While independence is essential for courts to function, unchecked authority can be equally problematic. This book advances a nuanced approach that incorporates accountability and oversight without compromising independence.

Part One introduces a conceptual framework for international judicial independence, tailored to the unique institutional and political contexts of regional courts and avoiding the uncritical application of domestic models. It draws on comparative analysis of courts in Europe and the Americas, including the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Andean Tribunal of Justice.

Part Two explores the normative foundations for constraining judicial power, examining legal accountability mechanisms and adapting the principle of checks and balances to the international sphere. Political constraints are reconceptualized as forms of institutional interdependence within a refined checks and balances framework.

Part Three tackles the implications of using checks and balances as a normative guiding principle and critically analyses national and regional institutional sources of constraint on selected courts, as well as specific mechanisms like judicial selection, political override, and non-compliance.

Filling a critical gap in the literature, this book provides a principled framework for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to assess existing arrangements and guide institutional design in international adjudication.

Kulick: International Courts and World Disorder

Andreas Kulick (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz - Law) has posted International Courts and World Disorder. Here's the abstract:

What do international courts have to offer when faced with raw power? In a state of international disorder, respect for international law erodes and so does the respect for international courts and tribunals (ICs) and their decisions. An IC decision constitutes an international legal obligation. It binds the disputing party states as any other rule of international law does. Regardless, whether international affairs are in a relative state of order or disorder, international actors, above all States, must observe international law. Yet, what if a State does not play along – and is powerful enough to also withstand any international legal or political measures seeking to enforce the IC decision in question? Russia, for example, flatly ignored that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on 16 March 2022, ordered it to halt its invasion of Ukraine and, as of May 2026, continues its aggression on Ukrainian territory. This piece investigates the effects of IC decisions when pushed to the margins by powerful States that can do so – and can, at least in first instance, get away with it. Such disregard for international judicial decisions occurring in higher frequencies indicates, at least from the prespective of international law, a state of international disorder. However, even in these situations, when pushed to the side, IC decisions are not pointless. They may have at least four effects that are interconnected and potentially reinforce each other, thereby providing a minimal contribution to the integrity of the international legal system.

Vasiliev & Blokker: Governance of International Courts and Tribunals: Institutions, Practices, and Norms

Sergey Vasiliev (Open Univ. of the Netherlands - Law) & Niels Blokker (Leiden Univ. - Law) have published Governance of International Courts and Tribunals: Institutions, Practices, and Norms (Oxford Univ. Press 2026). Here's the abstract:

Governance of International Courts and Tribunals presents the first systematic examination of the institutions, practices, and norms that constitute international judicial governance—the oversight exercised by states and international organisations over international courts and tribunals to ensure their independent, accountable, and effective functioning.

Departing from the traditional focus on courts' mandates, jurisprudence, and procedures, the book turns attention to international judicial governance institutions (what the book terms 'injugovins')—the political and executive bodies, such as organs of international organisations or dedicated governance bodies, responsible for overseeing courts. It explores their practices and the normative frameworks that guide them.

Injugovins are revealed as crucial yet long-overlooked actors in the international adjudicative landscape. Their performance shapes the entire life cycle of courts—from the adoption of constituent instruments to budgeting, appointments, accountability mechanisms, institutional reform, enforcement, and closure. Many of the challenges faced by courts, including legitimacy crises, limited effectiveness, and political backlash, often stem from, or are worsened by, governance shortcomings.

Addressing a long-standing gap in the literature, the volume develops a shared vocabulary and conceptual framework for understanding international judicial governance as a distinct domain of international institutional law and practice. Comprising 24 contributions, it combines conceptual analysis, regime-specific studies, and cross-cutting functional perspectives. It maps historical and contemporary governance models—including those of the PCIJ, ICJ, CJEU, ICC, and African regional courts—and examines key functions such as judicial elections, financial oversight, and enforcement. With empirical depth and analytical clarity, this volume lays the foundations for future research on the legitimacy, oversight, and effectiveness of international courts.

Sanchez: Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts

Maria A. Sanchez (Colorado College - Political Science) has published Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell Univ. Press 2026). Here's the abstract:

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts, Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles.

Maria A. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments.

Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs.

Vidigal: Adjudicating over Anarchy: Judicial Remedies, Compliance, and Enforcement in International Law

Geraldo Vidigal (Univ. of Amsterdam) has published Adjudicating over Anarchy: Judicial Remedies, Compliance, and Enforcement in International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2026). Here's the abstract:

Geraldo Vidigal thoroughly examines the judicial powers of international courts and tribunals and how these powers are used in practice. Without access to state-backed enforcement measures, international adjudicators must rely on their authority to influence real-world outcomes. The book reviews, and offers a comprehensive theory for, the various social mechanisms that explain why and how international judicial pronouncements affect the behaviour of states, influencing the views of individuals within states as well as changing states' mutual expectations of cooperative and sanction-worthy behaviour. The book considers how judicial remedies can induce compliance by targeting specific areas of disagreement, interpreting obligations, declaring violations, and establishing how wrongdoer states must offset unlawful injury. An often untapped type of remedy relies on the ability of courts to determine permissible responses to breach: what measures other actors may take to respond to violations, compelling wrongdoers to comply with their obligations and provide redress for injury.

Squatrito: Judging under Constraint: The Politics of Deference by International Courts

Theresa Squatrito (London School of Economics - International Relations) has published Judging under Constraint: The Politics of Deference by International Courts (Cambridge Univ. Press 2025). Here's the abstract:

As international courts have risen in prominence, policymakers, practitioners and scholars observe variation in judicial deference. Sometimes international courts defer, whereby they accept a state's exercise of authority, and other times not. Differences can be seen in case outcomes, legal interpretation and reasoning, and remedial orders. How can we explain variation in deference? This book examines deference by international courts, offering a novel theoretical account. It argues that deference is explained by a court's strategic space, which is structured by formal independence, seen as a dimension of institutional design, and state preferences. An empirical analysis built on original data of the East African Court of Justice, Caribbean Court of Justice, and African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights demonstrates that robust safeguards to independence and politically fragmented memberships lend legitimacy to courts and make collective state resistance infeasible, combining to minimize deference. Persuasive argumentation and public legitimation also enable nondeference.

Call for Papers: Narratives in International Courts and Tribunals

The Latin American Society of International Law's Interest Group on International Courts and Tribunals has issued a call for papers for a workshop on "Narratives in International Courts and Tribunals," to take place online on June 25, 2025. The call is here.

Call for Papers: International Courts and Tribunals Interactions and Challenges (Early Career Workshop)

The European Society of International Law and Leuphana University have issued a call for papers for an early career workshop on "International Courts and Tribunals: Interactions and Challenges," to be held June 19-20, 2025, in Lüneburg. The call is here. The deadline is January 30, 2025.

Gattini: Time and International Adjudication: The Temporal Factor in Proceedings before International Courts and Tribunals

Andrea Gattini (Università degli Studi di Padova - Law) has published Time and International Adjudication: The Temporal Factor in Proceedings before International Courts and Tribunals (Brill | Nijhoff 2024). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Time and International Adjudication fills a gap in legal literature in the field of international dispute settlement, by providing a wide selection of stimulating contributions by leading international scholars and lawyers, aimed at discussing the role of time in proceedings before international courts and tribunals.

The relevance of the temporal factor in international adjudication is assessed by considering each of the different phases of international judicial proceedings. The analysis covers inter-State proceedings before both permanent courts and tribunals (such as the ICJ, ITLOS and the DSB of the WTO) and arbitral tribunals, as well as international proceedings between individuals and States before regional human rights courts and investment tribunals.

Call for Papers: The Political Universes of International Courts

A call for papers has been issued for a research workshop on “The Political Universes of International Courts,” to take place May 29, 2025, at the University of Glasgow School of Law. The organizers particularly encourage the presentation of work from post-graduate and early-career researchers, as well as from more established scholars. The call is here.

Fortuna, et al.: Customary International Law and Its Interpretation by International Courts: Theories, Methods and Interactions

Marina Fortuna (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), Kostia Gorobets (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), Panos Merkouris (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), Andreas Føllesdal (Universitetet i Oslo), Geir Ulfstein (Universitetet i Oslo), & Pauline Westerman (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen) have published Customary International Law and Its Interpretation by International Courts: Theories, Methods and Interactions (Cambridge Univ. Press 2024). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

It is notorious that international courts and tribunals have greatly contributed to the development of customary international law (CIL) by, for instance, articulating the constituent elements of custom and clarifying the conditions required for its modification. This volume demonstrates that they have also been actively engaged in the interpretation of CIL. In elucidating CIL interpretation before and by international courts and tribunals, the volume chooses three focal points: theory, method and normative interactions. Viewing CIL and its interpretation from these vantage points leads to a more complete picture of the role and function of CIL interpretation in international courts. The volume encourages readers to question orthodox theories on CIL and its interpretation, to look anew at what has long been labelled mere identification of custom, and to take a systemic approach to CIL, which, even in the process of interpretation, remains unwaveringly connected to treaties and general principles of law.

Dothan: Standards of Review in International Courts

Shai Dothan (Univ. of Copenhagen - Law) has posted Standards of Review in International Courts (in Research Handbook on Accountability for Human Rights Violations, Kristin Henrard & Michelle Duin eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International human rights courts review applications brought before them by victims and these courts need to determine whether the facts they describe constitute violations of human rights norms. They fulfill this task in a world of scarce resources, under a potential threat of backlash, and without being immune from error. The decision processes of human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) take these conditions into account. Not all cases are treated the same way. The margin of appreciation doctrine allows the ECHR to defer to some state actions, and this margin can be narrowed or widened by the court. This is a doctrine of subsidiarity: it allows the ECHR to defer in some cases and intervene in others. Similar doctrines are available for other international courts. For example, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) adopted a similar doctrine of deference. There are also cases in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) that follow the ‘margin of appreciation logic’. Even the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) that officially rejected the margin of appreciation doctrine has ended up using similar legal techniques. The literature has investigated different ways to adjust the margin of appreciation to the standards of review that are proper in particular circumstances. Among the techniques investigated in this chapter are widening the margin of appreciation when the procedures of adjudication and legislation in the state have been adequately conducted and narrowing the margin in cases that involve a potential democratic failure — situations in which social groups are expected not to have sufficient power in representative bodies. The chapter will discuss the normative desirability as well as the political feasibility of different techniques and some criticism on the ways in which courts have applied these techniques in the past.

Paine: The Functions of International Adjudication and International Environmental Litigation

Joshua Paine (Univ. of Bristol - Law) has published The Functions of International Adjudication and International Environmental Litigation (Cambridge Univ. Press 2024). Here's the abstract:

This book uses environmental disputes as a focus to develop a novel comparative analysis of the functions of international adjudication. Paine focuses on three challenges confronting international tribunals: managing change in applicable legal norms or relevant facts, determining the appropriate standard and method of review when scrutinising State conduct for compliance with international obligations, and contributing to wider processes of dispute settlement. The book compares how tribunals manage these challenges across four key sites of international adjudication: adjudication in the World Trade Organization and under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, International Court of Justice litigation, and investment treaty arbitration. It shows that while international tribunals perform several key functions in the contemporary international legal order, they are subject to significant constraints. Paine makes a genuine addition to literature on the role of international adjudication in international law which will benefit academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

Conference: The International Judicial Function under Pressure: Do Courts and Tribunals Go Off the Rails?

On February 8-9, 2024, the Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement will host a conference on "The International Judicial Function under Pressure: Do Courts and Tribunals Go Off the Rails? Details are here.

Call for Papers: The Environment before International Courts and Tribunals: new challenges for international regulation

The fifth UFMG International Law Colloquium will take palce on April 11-13, 2024, at the Federal University of Minas Gerais Law School, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The topic is: "The Environment before International Courts and Tribunals: new challenges for international regulation." The event is co-organized by the Latin American Society of International Law and the Brazilian Branch of the International Law Association. The call is here.

Call for Papers: Recharacterising International Disputes: Exploring the Phenomenon of Multi-Fora Litigation

A call for papers has been issued for a conference on "Recharacterising International Disputes: Exploring the Phenomenon of Multi-Fora Litigation," to be held June 12-13, 2024, at Maastricht University. The call is here.

Yildiz: Between Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against Torture

Ezgi Yildiz (California State Univ., Long Beach - Political Science) has published Between Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against Torture (Cambridge Univ. Press 2023). This book is available open access. Here's the abstract:

When international courts are given sweeping powers, why would they ever refuse to use them? The book explains how and when courts employ strategies for institutional survival and resilience: forbearance and audacity, which help them adjust their sovereignty costs to pre-empt and mitigate backlash and political pushback. By systematically analysing almost 2,300 judgements from the European Court of Human Rights from 1967–2016, Ezgi Yildiz traces how these strategies shaped the norm against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. With expert interviews and a nuanced combination of social science and legal methods, Yildiz innovatively demonstrates what the norm entails, and when and how its contents changed over time. Exploring issues central to public international law and international relations, this interdisciplinary study makes a timely intervention in the debate on international courts, international norms, and legal change.

Conversation: Arguing Cases before International Courts and Tribunals

On November 24, 2023, Bocconi University will host, in the hybrid format, a conversation on "Arguing Cases before International Courts and Tribunals." Details are here.

Morris: The Concept of International Law in the Early Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), 1922–1930

P. Sean Morris (Univ. of Helsinki - Law) has posted The Concept of International Law in the Early Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), 1922–1930 (in The Hope of Ages is in the Process of Realization: Establishing a World Court, 1920 – 1922, Henri Waele & Christian Tams eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This chapter examines the employment of international law as a concept in the early Advisory Opinions of the PCIJ (1922–1930). After a short review of the gradual evolution of the broader idea of the law of nations in the works of Christian Wolff and Jeremy Bentham, the central argument is that, even when the PCIJ invoked international law as a term or as an interpretative mechanism, this was often in relation to either the broader international legal environment of the 1920s, or general principles of international law. The majority of the Court’s early Advisory Opinions do not display any references to scholarship, and as such rarely invoked international law as a concept. This appears to reflect an effort to align with the shifting paradigms of the day concerning the law of nations, and the ‘new’ international law of the twentieth century. The analysis suggests further that the judicial practice consisted of a ‘jurisprudential mode’ which eventually gave way to one more closely premised on ‘mutual transactions’.