Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings. / Madsen, Mikael Rask; Mayoral, Juan A.; Strezhnev, Anton; Voeten, Erik.

I: American Political Science Review, Bind 116, Nr. 2, 2022, s. 419-438.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Madsen, MR, Mayoral, JA, Strezhnev, A & Voeten, E 2022, 'Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings', American Political Science Review, bind 116, nr. 2, s. 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001143

APA

Madsen, M. R., Mayoral, J. A., Strezhnev, A., & Voeten, E. (2022). Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001143

Vancouver

Madsen MR, Mayoral JA, Strezhnev A, Voeten E. Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings. American Political Science Review. 2022;116(2):419-438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001143

Author

Madsen, Mikael Rask ; Mayoral, Juan A. ; Strezhnev, Anton ; Voeten, Erik. / Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings. I: American Political Science Review. 2022 ; Bind 116, Nr. 2. s. 419-438.

Bibtex

@article{fc0526fd9ddc46b79f64a968ffe7f727,
title = "Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts{\textquoteright} Human Rights Rulings",
abstract = "Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.",
author = "Madsen, {Mikael Rask} and Mayoral, {Juan A.} and Anton Strezhnev and Erik Voeten",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1017/S0003055421001143",
language = "English",
volume = "116",
pages = "419--438",
journal = "American Political Science Review",
issn = "0003-0554",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings

AU - Madsen, Mikael Rask

AU - Mayoral, Juan A.

AU - Strezhnev, Anton

AU - Voeten, Erik

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.

AB - Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.

U2 - 10.1017/S0003055421001143

DO - 10.1017/S0003055421001143

M3 - Journal article

VL - 116

SP - 419

EP - 438

JO - American Political Science Review

JF - American Political Science Review

SN - 0003-0554

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 286072863