Courts, Rights, and Democratic Participation

Abstract

This article examines the connection between rights, courts, and the changing nature of democratic participation. The general comparative model developed is then applied to a time-series analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The article is the first to offer a systematic social science analysis of ECHR decisions with particular emphasis on changing democratic opportunities for individuals at both the domestic and supranational level. The findings reveal how rights and access to legal institutions shape the way courts serve as arenas for public participation-a consequence that brings into question dominant theories of international organization and comparative studies of judicial politics. C itizens around the world are demanding more participation in their democracy and a greater power over their governments. Courts are at the core of this transformation. Scholars have observed a growing change in democratic governance reflected by a general shift away from the traditional institutions of representative democracy and instead governance characterized both by the demand for and the attainment of greater citizen access, 50

Legal opportunity structure and social movement strategy in Northern Ireland and southern United States

“…As courts' power to affect governments and policy-making is increasing (Cichowski, 2006), social movements recognize that judicial systems constitute potentially valuable arenas for contentious politics. Indeed, national courts 3 sometimes play a decisive role in advancing social movements' rights-based agendas.…”

Eurolegalism and Democracy

“…Though the ECJ eventually affirmed that it, too, would uphold fundamental human rights as general principles of Community law, supranational human rights adjudication in Europe has remained – at least until the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty – the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR has impacted national practices in highly sensitive areas such as rights of prisoners, gay rights, the display of religious symbols and abortion, and since 1998 reforms opened up direct access to the ECHR, it has accelerated its activities, hearing thousands of cases (Cichowski, 2006; Keller and Stone Sweet, 2008). While the ECHR has done much to promote judicialization in the human rights sphere, the EU and the ECJ have encouraged the distinctive form of judicialization described above – Eurolegalism – across a broad range of areas of regulatory policy.…”

“…EU law‐makers and the ECJ have together established a host of new substantive and procedural rights for individuals guaranteed under EU law (Kelemen, 2011). By emphasizing transparency, accountability and individual rights, European law is enhancing opportunities for public participation in governance and thus promises to improve the quality of democracy across Europe (Schepel and Blankenburg, 2001; Cichowski and Stone Sweet, 2003; Kelemen, 2006; Cichowski, 2006, 2007). For social groups that were historically excluded from corporatist policy‐making networks, new opportunities for litigation may enhance their access to the policy‐making process (Cichowski, 2007; Hartnell, 2002).…”

Multilayered Citizenship in Extended European Orders: Kurds Acting as European Citizens*

“…It entails political participation at both the national and European levels. In this respect, the emerging literature on courts as arenas of political participation, and in particular, Rachel Cichowski's (2006, p. 69) argument on how ‘the expansion in rights and access to legal institutions has increased the participatory nature of governance in Europe’, is instructive. At the national level, it signifies a commitment to the improvement of national citizenship rights to the European standards and the pursuit of the full implementation of national citizenship rights, if necessary, by recourse to European legal institutions.…”