Substance over Procedural Sovereignty: Why Authoritarians and Nationalists Oppose European Courts
Research output: Working paper › Research
Standard
Substance over Procedural Sovereignty: Why Authoritarians and Nationalists Oppose European Courts. / Madsen, Mikael Rask; Mayoral, Juan; Strezhnev, Anton; Voeten, Erik.
2020.Research output: Working paper › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
T1 - Substance over Procedural Sovereignty: Why Authoritarians and Nationalists Oppose European Courts
AU - Madsen, Mikael Rask
AU - Mayoral, Juan
AU - Strezhnev, Anton
AU - Voeten, Erik
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - To what extent is the public backlash against European courts driven by substantive concerns over the outcomes of cases and/or procedural concerns over sovereignty? We conducted pre-registered 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 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 interventionism influences support for compliance or court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. This is even more so for respondents with nationalist and authoritarian leanings. Nationalist opposition to court decisions is not influenced by European court activism or even a mention of European courts, suggesting that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces. These findings have implications for our understanding of the authoritarian and nationalist challenges to (international) institutions and the legitimacy of international institutions. Moreover, they imply that international courts cannot resurrect their popularity through deference alone.
AB - To what extent is the public backlash against European courts driven by substantive concerns over the outcomes of cases and/or procedural concerns over sovereignty? We conducted pre-registered 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 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 interventionism influences support for compliance or court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. This is even more so for respondents with nationalist and authoritarian leanings. Nationalist opposition to court decisions is not influenced by European court activism or even a mention of European courts, suggesting that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces. These findings have implications for our understanding of the authoritarian and nationalist challenges to (international) institutions and the legitimacy of international institutions. Moreover, they imply that international courts cannot resurrect their popularity through deference alone.
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/1b1c5077-584a-3618-9290-fca5dd485067/
M3 - Working paper
T3 - Working Paper
BT - Substance over Procedural Sovereignty: Why Authoritarians and Nationalists Oppose European Courts
ER -
ID: 260355342