Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights Rulings. / Madsen, Mikael Rask; Mayoral, Juan A.; Strezhnev, Anton; Voeten, Erik.
In: American Political Science Review, Vol. 116, No. 2, 2022, p. 419-438.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
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