Plaintiff's Diplomacy

Slaughter, Anne-Marie; Bosco, David

doi:10.2307/20049891

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Private access is important because private actors are more numerous and would appear especially likely to pursue cases that are either too politically "hot" or a low priority for international commissions or states with limited resources and conflicting priorities (Alter, 2002). Private-actor cases also tend to have domestic enforcement components, bringing international law into the domestic realm, thereby harnessing domestic actors to help enforce international rules (Hathaway, 2005;Helfer & Slaughter, 1997Keohane et al, 2000;Slaughter, 2000Slaughter, , 2004Slaughter & Bosco, 2000). Even without the domestic component, more cases create more opportunities for courts to intervene in policy debates and facilitate incremental decision making, which can be used to build political support for legal doctrine with time (Alter, 2001, pp.…”

Section: How Are Ics With Compulsory Jurisdiction and Private-actomentioning

confidence: 99%

Private Litigants and the New International Courts

Alter

2006

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars expect International Courts (ICs) with private access and compulsory jurisdiction to be more independent and effective. This article shows a trend of creating and using ICs with compulsory jurisdiction and private access, using as evidence the founding statutes and usage rates of 20 ICs created since 1945. Analyzing where and for what private actors are granted access to ICs, the author finds that what is driving the expansion of private access and compulsory jurisdiction is an attempt to extend the types of juridical checks found at the domestic level to the international governance level. Although this trend will likely lead to more rights claiming by private actors, limitations on the types of cases that can be raised combined with a lack of usage suggests that outside of Europe, private right claiming potentials have yet to be exploited.

show abstract

Section: How Are Ics With Compulsory Jurisdiction and Private-actomentioning

confidence: 99%

Private Litigants and the New International Courts

Alter

2006

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasingly, individuals are holding corporations and/or governments accountable, often with backing from a growing array of nonstate actors. Critics of this trend have argued that postwar compensation litigation complicates diplomacy, distracts government officials, and constrains diplomats' options for pursuing the national interest (Slaughter and Bosco 2000). Yet activism without litigation can also frustrate foreign affairs, as illustrated by the 2017 monthslong recall of Japan's ambassador to Korea and the consul general over a disputed comfort woman statue in Busan (Rich 2017).…”

Section: Litigation's "Radiating Effects" and The Mechanisms Behind Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some scholars praise how long silences have been broken, transnational advocacy networks formed, and public memory and perceptions of justice transformed (e.g., Berger 2012 ; Keck and Sikkink 1998 ;Neumann and Thompson 2015). Others argue that lawsuits related to history complicate and constrain diplomacy (Slaughter and Bosco 2000) or that state apologies incite domestic counter-mobilization (Lind 2008). Diplomatic tensions between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) in early 2019, following the Korean Supreme Court's rulings in former forced laborers' favor last fall, confirm such arguments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mechanisms behind Litigation's “Radiating Effects”: Historical Grievances against Japan

Arrington¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars argue that litigation can have positive and negative “radiating” or indirect effects for social movements, irrespective of formal judicial decisions. They see litigation as a dynamic process with distinctive features yet nonetheless intertwined with advocacy in other forums. Litigation can indirectly shape collective identities, reframe debates, or provide political leverage. However, the mechanisms behind these radiating effects are poorly understood. Through an analysis of lawsuits and related activism by Korean survivors of Japanese actions in the first half of the twentieth century, this article disaggregates the mechanisms behind litigation's productive indirect effects. It theorizes and illustrates mechanisms such as attribution of similarity, brokerage, issue dramatization, political cover, and intergroup discussions. These mechanisms help us understand how litigants obtain litigation's indirect effects and thus also the broader impact of postwar compensation lawsuits in East Asia, despite few judicial victories. The article contributes non‐Western and transnational cases to scholarship on litigation's indirect effects.

show abstract

“…At the same time, the issue is to stimulate judicial activism in certain jurisdictions by seizing the opportunities offered by certain events with transnational repercussions. Extraterritorial juridical competence increasingly expands while lawsuits against individuals, companies, and foreign governments are increasingly common (Slaughter and Bosco 2000). NGOs specialised in the defence of human rights have strikingly shown how active they are in calling on national jurisdictions to exercise their “universal competence” in order to punish those responsible for crimes against humanity, the environment, minorities, and indigenous people; they also protect animals threatened by extinction and defend biodiversity no matter wherever the acts condemned were committed and regardless of the nationality or place of residence of the persons behind them.…”

Section: Hypothesis 3: the Jurisdictionalisation Of Certain Cases Is mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressions of international contestation and mechanisms of democratic control

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors examine various questions regarding the new expressions of international contestation, analysing answers and reactions from states to the emergence of non‐governmental actors opposed to the present world order who claim to propose alternatives to neo‐liberal governance. To do so, the authors identify some of the more visible movements of contestation against economic globalisation, like the Seattle, Prague, and Genoa demonstrations, and, first of all, the four editions of the World Social Forum that have taken place, first in Porto Alegre and latterly in Mumbai. At the same time, the article shows the interstate relations that aim to control and if necessary repress these movements, particularly after the attacks on 11 September 2001, and surveys the main legal measures adopted by governments and international institutions, in particular within the European Union. Finally, an account is given of certain strategies to “jurisdictionalise” international conflicts, which some new kinds of litigants purport to use to give legitimacy and visibility to contested claims by directing them to a third‐party adjudicator (a tribunal, a mediator, a humanitarian body, etc.).

show abstract

Plaintiff's Diplomacy

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Private Litigants and the New International Courts

Private Litigants and the New International Courts

The Mechanisms behind Litigation's “Radiating Effects”: Historical Grievances against Japan

Expressions of international contestation and mechanisms of democratic control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About