Salvatore Caserta has article accepted by Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law – University of Copenhagen

Forward this page to a friend Resize Print Bookmark and Share

iCourts > News > Salvatore Caserta has ...

31 March 2017

Salvatore Caserta has article accepted by Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law

Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law has accepted an article by iCourts Postdoc, Salvatore Caserta. The article is entitled: Regional International Courts in Search of Relevance
- Adjudicating Politically Sensitive Disputes in Central America and the Caribbean
 
Abstract:
The Central American and of the Caribbean Courts of Justice (CACJ and CCJ) are hybrid judicial institutions. While their Member States chiefly envisaged them as EU-style regional economic courts, they have explored the whole extension of their formally delegated functions and have developed peculiar expertise in matters relating to freedom of movement, human and fundamental rights, and mega-politics. The article explains how two ICs seemingly established to build common markets have come to rule on high-stakes political disputes, which, ostensibly, have little to do with regional economic integration. The article posits that the scholarship on delegation to ICs is only partially able to provide an answer to this question. It, hence, suggests an alternative theoretical framework by relying on transnational field theory and reflexive sociology. The article demonstrates that, despite the rhetoric of their founding documents, both the CACJ and the CCJ were only partially established to pursue regional economic integration. Instead, both Courts were fashioned at the crossroad of several – and at times even conflicting – forms of legality, power battles, professional interests, and visions of the world that shaped the Central American and Caribbean legal fields over time. Seen through the diachronic lens of the actors inhabiting the Central American and Caribbean legal fields, the involvement of the two Courts in politically sensitive issues becomes less surprising, and – the article argues – it constitutes part of a strategy of the judges to legitimize the two Courts vis-à-vis their peculiar institutional, political, and social environments.
 
A working paper version of the paper can be accessed here.