Efter- og videreuddannelse
Kursussøgning

Courts, Power, and Politics: Europe in Context

Course content

Far from impartial interpreters of the law, courts often shape and are shaped by politics. The judicialization of politics—the phenomenon by which an increasing number of political and societal values are allocated by courts rather than elected politicians—has become a defining feature of governance in Europe. At its helm is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Courts would have no political role if judges simply applied the law and politicians readily complied with their rulings. Instead, legislators often leave high courts with extensive interpretative discretion, while judges lack the power to enforce their decisions. The result is a strategic interplay where courts navigate their independence within political constraints.

 

This course examines central questions in comparative politics through the lens of the judiciary. It introduces theories of judicial behavior and explores the interplay between courts, legislatures, and executives, as well as the role of public opinion in shaping judicial independence and legitimacy. Drawing on examples from both the European and American contexts, and with a special focus on the CJEU, the course provides students with tools to analyze how judicial decisions influence and are influenced by political dynamics.

 

We will ask questions like:

  • Are judges’ political preferences reflected in their decisions?
  • Is there a tradeoff between competence and ideology?
  • How do we balance judicial independence with accountability?
  • What is the influence of public opinion on courts’ willingness to challenge governments?

  • How do governments shape high court decisions?

  • What mechanisms shape judicial legitimacy?

 

The course draws on a variety of political science research methods, including quantitative, qualitative, and formal approaches. Students will engage with a mix of classics in the field and cutting-edge research to evaluate judicial behavior, institutional design, and the broader implications of courts in democratic governance. This course is relevant for students looking to study EU decision making from a different angle and those interested in the strategic dynamics of political institutions in established democracies.

Education

Full-degree students enrolled at the Department of Political Science, UCPH

  • MSc in Political Science
  • MSc in Social Science
  • MSc in Security Risk Management
  • Bachelor in Political Science

 

Full-degree students enrolled at the Faculty of Social Science, UCPH 

  • Bachelor and Master Programmes in Anthropology
  • Bachelor and Master Programmes in Psychology 
  • Master Programme in Social Data Science

 

The course is open to:

  • Exchange and Guest students from abroad
  • Credit students from Danish Universities
  • Open University students
Learning outcome

Knowledge:

  • Understanding the elements that lead courts to take a political role and the elements that constrain them.
  • Knowledge of leading theories of judicial politics
  • A view of strategic institutional interactions in established democracies

 

Skills:

  • Critically discuss and confront empirical studies on judicial decision making.
  • Independently apply theoretical and empirical insights to contemporary political issues involving the judiciary.
  • Usefully engage with studies drawing on diverse methods (quantitative and qualitative methods; formal models and argumentative pieces) to discuss political decision making.

 

Competences:

  • Integrate theoretical and empirical insights from judicial politics into broader political science debates on institutional design and democratic politics.
  • Critically engage with and contribute to academic and policy discussions on the role of courts in political decision-making, with a focus on strategic and comparative perspectives.
  • Ability to argue analytically and systematically for theoretical and methodological choices.

The course will consist of lectures by the instructor accompanied by discussions. Students have the opportunity to present and get feedback on their assignments.

The syllabus consists of approximately 900-1200 pages and will primarily include scientific articles supplemented with other readings.

 

  1. Bailey, Christine M., Paul M. Collins Jr, Jesse H. Rhodes, and Douglas Rice. 2024. “The Effect of Judicial Decisions on Issue Salience and Legal Consciousness in Media Serving the LGBTQ+ Community.” American Political Science Review, February, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424000030.
  2. Bartels, Brandon L., and Christopher D. Johnston. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 184–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x.
  3. Boyd, Christina L., Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x.
  4. Brace, Paul, and Brent D. Boyea. 2008. “State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (2): 360–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00317.x.
  5. Carrubba, Clifford James, Matthew J. Gabel, and Charles Hankla. 2008. “Judicial Behavior Under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice.” American Political Science Review 102 (4): 435–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080350.
  6. ———. 2012. “Understanding the Role of the European Court of Justice in European Integration.” American Political Science Review 106 (1): 214–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116518793707.
  7. Cheruvu, Sivaram. 2024. “Are Judges on Per Curiam Courts Ideological? Evidence from the European Court of Justice.” Journal of Law and Courts 12 (1): 185–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2023.17.
  8. Christenson, Dino P., and David M. Glick. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 403–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12150.
  9. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Mark A. Pollack. 2017. “The Judicial Trilemma.” American Journal of International Law 111 (2): 225–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.23.
  10. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1997. The Choices Justices Make. Washington: SAGE.
  11. Ferejohn, John A. 2002. “Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law.” Law and Contemporary Problems 65 (3): 41–68.
  12. Ferejohn, John A., and Barry R. Weingast. 1992. “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (2): 263–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(92)90046-T.
  13. Garoupa, Nuno, Fernando Gómez-Pomar, and Adrián Segura. 2022. “Ideology and Career Judges: Reviewing Labor Law in the Spanish Supreme Court.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics: JITE 178 (2): 170–90. https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2022-0007.
  14. Gibson, James L., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1995. “The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 459–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111621.
  15. ———. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review 45 (1): 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00432.x.
  16. Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2015. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 162–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12107.
  17. Glynn, Adam N., and Maya Sen. 2015. “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?: Identifying Judicial Empathy.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12118.
  18. Helfer, Laurence R., and Erik Voeten. 2014. “International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe.” International Organization 68 (1): 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000398.
  19. Hilson, Chris. 2002. “New Social Movements: The Role of Legal Opportunity.” Journal of European Public Policy 9 (2): 238–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120246.
  20. Hix, Simon, and Bjørn Høyland. 2022. “Chapter 4: Judicial Politics.” In The Political System of the European Union, 4th ed., 89–120.
  21. Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2012. “The Political Foundations of Judicial Independence in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 19 (1): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.632127.
  22. Kern, Holger L., and Georg Vanberg. 2024. “Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law: Tainted Judges and Accountability for Nazi Crimes in West Germany.” The Journal of Politics 86 (4): 1333–47. https://doi.org/10.1086/729959.
  23. Krehbiel, Jay N. 2016. “The Politics of Judicial Procedures: The Role of Public Oral Hearings in the German Constitutional Court.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 990–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12229.
  24. ———. 2021. “Strategic Delay and the Use of Incompatibility Rulings at the German Constitutional Court.” The Journal of Politics 83 (3): 821–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/711129.
  25. Lax, Jeffrey R. 2011. “The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine.” Annual Review of Political Science 14 (1): 131–57. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.042108.134842. (2): 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewm023.
  26. Martinsen, Dorte Sindbjerg. 2015. “Judicial Influence on Policy Outputs? The Political Constraints of Legal Integration in the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (12): 1622–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015592591.
  27. Posner, Richard A. 2010b. “Nine Theories of Judicial Behavior.” In How Judges Think. Vol. Chapter 1. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674033832.
  28. Saurugger, Sabine, and Fabien Terpan. 2016. “The Court in the History of the European Union.” In The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Politics of Law, 1st ed., 10–42. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
  29. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Staton, Jeffrey K., and Georg Vanberg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 504–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00326.x.
  31. Stiansen, Øyvind. 2022. “(Non)Renewable Terms and Judicial Independence in the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of Politics, no. 1.
  32. Swalve, Tilko. 2022. “Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 19 (1): 223–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12308.
  33. Vanberg, Georg. 2015. “Constitutional Courts in Comparative Perspective: A Theoretical Assessment.” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 167–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150.
  34. Vanhala, Lisa. 2009. “Anti-Discrimination Policy Actors and Their Use of Litigation Strategies: The Influence of Identity Politics.” Journal of European Public Policy 16 (5): 738–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983473.
  35. Voeten, Erik. 2021. “Gender and Judging: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights.” Journal of European Public Policy 28 (9): 1453–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1786146.
  36. Zhang, Angela Huyue, Jingchen Liu, and Nuno Garoupa. 2018. “Judging in Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter?” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14 (1): 144–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhx031.

Method 1-3 and Danish and Comparative Politics 1-2 at the undergraduate level or equivalent.

Oral
Individual
Continuous feedback during the course of the semester
ECTS
7,5 ECTS
Type of assessment
Home assignment
Type of assessment details
Ongoing tests.
See the section regarding exam forms in the program curriculum for more information on guidelines and scope.
Aid
All aids allowed except Generative AI
Marking scale
7-point grading scale
Censorship form
No external censorship
Re-exam

In the semester where the course takes place: Free written assignment

In subsequent semesters: Free written assignment

Criteria for exam assessment

Meet the subject's knowledge, skill and competence criteria, as described in the goal description, which demonstrates the minimally acceptable degree of fulfillment of the subject's learning outcome.

Grade 12 is given for an outstanding performance: the student lives up to the course's goal description in an independent and convincing manner with no or few and minor shortcomings

Grade 7 is given for a good performance: the student is confidently able to live up to the goal description, albeit with several shortcomings

Grade 02 is given for an adequate performance: the minimum acceptable performance in which the student is only able to live up to the goal description in an insecure and incomplete manner

Single subject courses (day)

  • Category
  • Hours
  • Class Instruction
  • 28
  • Preparation
  • 162
  • Exam
  • 16
  • English
  • 206

Kursusinformation

Language
English
Course number
ASTK18468U
ECTS
7,5 ECTS
Programme level
Full Degree Master
Bachelor
Duration

1 semester

Placement
Autumn
Studyboard
Department of Political Science, Study Council
Contracting department
  • Department of Political Science
  • Department of Anthropology
  • Department of Psychology
  • Social Data Science
Contracting faculty
  • Faculty of Social Sciences
Course Coordinator
  • Silje Synnøve Lyder Hermansen   (15-766c6f6d68316b6875706471766871436c6976316e7831676e)
Saved on the 01-05-2025
Tilbage

Er du BA- eller KA-studerende?

Er du bachelor- eller kandidat-studerende, så find dette kursus i kursusbasen for studerende:

Kursusinformation for indskrevne studerende

Københavns Universitet
Nørregade 10
1165 København K
Kontakt:
Videreuddannelse og Livslang Læring
videreuddannelse@adm.ku.dk