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 will also present and get feedback on their assignments.

Ashworth, Scott. 2012. “Electoral Accountability: Recent Theoretical and Empirical Work.”

Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpolisci-

031710-103823.

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.

Bentsen, Henrik Litleré. 2018. “Court Leadership, Agenda Transformation, and Judicial

Dissent: A European Case of a ‘Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms’.” Journal of

Law and Courts 6 (1): 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/695555.

Borderlines. 2024. “CJEU Episode #2: European Union Court of Justice Series Interview

with President Koen Lenaerts | Borderlines.” Borderlines.

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://www.jstor.org/stable/25193818.

10

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.

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.

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.

Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1997. The Choices Justices Make. Washington: SAGE.

Ferejohn, John A., Frances Rosenbluth, and Charles R. Shipan. 2009. Comparative Judicial

Politics. Edited by Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0030.

Frankenreiter, Jens. 2018. “Informal Judicial Hierarchies: Case Assignment and Chamber

Composition at the European Court of Justice.” {{SSRN Scholarly Paper}}. Rochester,

NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2778807.

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.

Geerling, Wayne, Gary Magee, Vinod Mishra, and Russell Smyth. 2018. “Hitler’s Judges:

Ideological Commitment and the Death Penalty in Nazi Germany.” The Economic Journal

128 (614): 2414–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12497.

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.

Glick, David. 2009. “Conditional Strategic Retreat: The Court’s Concession in the 1935

Gold Clause Cases.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1017/

S0022381609090720.

Helfer, Laurence R., and Karen J. Alter. 2013. “Legitimacy and Lawmaking: A Tale

of Three International Courts.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14 (2): 479–504. https:

//doi.org/10.1515/til-2013-024.

Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder, and Daniel Naurin. 2025. “Shaping the Bench: The

Effect of Ideology and Influence on Judicial Reappointments.” The Journal of Politics.

https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2024-kvbc9.

Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder, Tommaso Pavone, and Louisa Boulaziz. 2025. “Leveling

and Spotlighting: How the European Court of Justice Favors the Weak to Promote Its

Legitimacy.” British Journal of Political Science 55 (January): e158. https://doi.org/

10.1017/S0007123425100987.

Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder, and Erik Voeten. 2024. “The Effects of Ideology and 

Opinion Assignment on European Court of Justice Rulings: Evidence from Anti-Trust

and State Aid Cases.” In American Political Science Association.

Hirschl, Ran. 2011. “The Judicialization of Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political

Science.

Kern, Holger L., and Georg Vanberg. 2024. “Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law:

11

Tainted Judges and Accountability for Nazi Crimes in West Germany.” The Journal of

Politics 86 (4): 1333–47. https://doi.org/10.1086/729959.

Krehbiel, Jay N., and Sivaram Cheruvu. 2021. “Can International Courts Enhance Domestic

Judicial Review? Separation of Powers and the European Court of Justice.” The Journal

of Politics, May, 715250. https://doi.org/10.1086/715250.

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.

Madsen, Mikael Rask, Juan A. Mayoral, Anton Strezhnev, and Erik Voeten. 2021.

“Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts’ Human Rights

Rulings.” American Political Science Review, November, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/

S0003055421001143.

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.

National Public Radio, (NPR). 2016. “More Perfect: The Political Thicket.” More Perfect.

Pavone, Tommaso, and Øyvind Stiansen. 2022. “The Shadow Effect of Courts: Judicial

Review and the Politics of Preemptive Reform.” American Political Science Review 116

(1): 322–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000873.

Podcast, Not Another Politics. n.d. “Not Another Politics Podcast.” Accessed July 15,

2025.

Posner, Richard A. 2010. “Nine Theories of Judicial Behavior.” In How Judges Think. Vol.

Chapter 1. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674033832.

Saurugger, Sabine, and Fabien Terpan. 2017a. “Chapter 3: The Role of the Court in the

EU Political System.” In The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Politics of

Law. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.

———. 2017b. “Chapter 4: The Role of the Court in the EU Political System.” In The Court

of Justice of the European Union and the Politics of Law. London, United Kingdom:

Bloomsbury Academic.

 

Stiansen, Øyvind. 2021. “Directing Compliance? Remedial Approach and Compliance with

European Court of Human Rights Judgments.” British Journal of Political Science 51

(2): 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000292.

———. 2022. “(Non)Renewable Terms and Judicial Independence in the European Court

of Human Rights.” Journal of Politics, no. 1.

Vanberg, Georg. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

———. 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.

Voeten, Erik. 2024. “Do Domestic Climate Rulings Make Climate Commitments More

Credible? Evidence from Stock Market Returns.” The Journal of Politics, September.

https://doi.org/10.1086/732952

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

Oral
Peer feedback (Students give each other feedback)
ECTS
7,5 ECTS
Type of assessment
Home assignment
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
Exam period

Vintereksamen 2026/27

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   (15-81777a78733c7673807b6f7c81737c4e7774813c79833c7279)
Saved on the 28-04-2026
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
lifelonglearning@adm.ku.dk