Explaining Changes to Rights Litigation: Testing a Multivariate Model in a Comparative Framework

Urribarri, Raul A. Sanchez; Schorpp, Susanne; Randazzo, Kirk A.; Songer, Donald R.

doi:10.1017/s0022381611000156

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like Epp's account of rights-based adjudication in Britain, Canada, India, and the United States, Moustafa's account of judicial review in Egypt emphasizes the significant role played by legal professional associations, human rights organizations, and other aspects of a civil society "support structure" in enabling robust judicial enforcement of constitutional rights guarantees (Epp 1998;Moustafa 2007). Depending on the institutional configuration of apex courts, however, such support structures do not appear to be a necessary condition for judicial rights protection (Sanchez Urribarri et al 2011;Wilson 2009). Where apex courts are designed so as to enable broad citizen access, judges who are inclined to defend key constitutional rights against regime infringement are likely to have a steady supply of cases in which they might do so.…”

Section: Whose Interests Do Judges Serve?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

Botero

Ellett

Keck³

et al. 2020

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of judicial power globally has renewed scholarly debates about who benefits from increased judicial authority. Using original data, we examine the full universe of constitutional free expression decisions issued by three apex courts—in Colombia, India, and South Africa—across three categories of disputes that feature a diverse array of rights claimants. By so doing, we shed light on the limits of elite-driven accounts of judicial empowerment. We find that even where constitutional courts are empowered by elites seeking to advance their own interests, activist courts can develop a practice of rights-protection that benefits a diverse range of less powerful actors. Moreover, regardless of whether the speech claimants are elite or non-elite actors, these three apex courts regularly rule in favor of free expression for dissenting or unorthodox speech acts. In sum, where issues are peripheral to the governing regime’s core interests, relatively powerless actors are sometimes able to use legal processes to advance their rights and interests.

show abstract

Section: Whose Interests Do Judges Serve?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

Botero

Ellett

Keck³

et al. 2020

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Next, we replicate five recent GECM studies. Two are presented below and three (Kelly and Enns 2010;Sanchez Urribarri et al 2011; and Volscho and Kelly 2012) can be found in Appendices E.1, E.2, and E.3 of the Supplementary Materials. In each study, key findings change when using alternative methods.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Correction Methods with Political Time Series

Grant¹,

Lebo

2016

Polit. anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While traditionally considered for non-stationary and cointegrated data, DeBoef and Keele suggest applying a General Error Correction Model (GECM) to stationary data with or without cointegration. The GECM has since become extremely popular in political science but practitioners have confused essential points. For one, the model is treated as perfectly flexible when, in fact, the opposite is true. Time series of various orders of integration–stationary, non-stationary, explosive, near- and fractionally integrated–should not be analyzed together but researchers consistently make this mistake. That is, withoutequation balancethe model is misspecified and hypothesis tests and long-run-multipliers are unreliable. Another problem is that the error correction term's sampling distribution moves dramatically depending upon the order of integration, sample size, number of covariates, and theboundednessofYt.This means that practitioners are likely to overstate evidence of error correction, especially when using a traditionalt-test. We evaluate common GECM practices with six types of data, 746 simulations, and five paper replications.

show abstract

“…While judicial scholars are increasingly attentive to courts of last resort beyond the United States (Hanretty 2020; Johnson and Masood 2023; Solberg and Wetstein 2007; Sanchez Urribarri et al 2011), we shift the research focus to how inferior court judges interact with their judicial superiors in comparative context. In doing so, we explore two key questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical Interactions and Compliance in Comparative Courts

Masood

Bowie

2023

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national design in three countries—Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States—with similar systems but meaningful institutional variability. We find that the mechanisms promulgating adherence to Supreme Court precedents do not substantially vary across design or institutional context. Instead, our results demonstrate that legal factors exert a consistent, homogeneous effect on lower court compliance across judicial systems. Our work offers new and important implications for studies on law and courts and comparative institutions, more broadly.

show abstract

Explaining Changes to Rights Litigation: Testing a Multivariate Model in a Comparative Framework

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

Error Correction Methods with Political Time Series

Hierarchical Interactions and Compliance in Comparative Courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About