Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Domestic Courts and Global Governance

August 18, 2006/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

Christopher Whytock (Duke University) has posted a very interesting article on SSRN, entitled Domestic Courts and Global Governance. Here's the abstract:

This paper proposes a concept of “transnational judicial governance” that draws attention to the important but widely neglected role of domestic courts in the governance of transnational relations, makes explicit the connections between private international law and global governance, and emphasizes the domestic legal and institutional foundations of transnational activity. Because legal scholars have done little positive theoretical or systematic empirical work on judicial decisionmaking in transnational disputes, and because international relations scholars – even those interested in global governance – generally have paid little attention to domestic courts, we have little knowledge about how domestic courts actually behave as global governors.

This paper, and the broader project on domestic courts and global governance of which it is a part, seeks to help fill that gap. I first present the concept of transnational judicial governance, and clarify its relationship to the concepts of transgovernmental networks and the legalization of world politics. Second, taking an interdisciplinary approach, I situate the concept in relation to private international law scholarship, and international relations scholarship on global governance, international political economy, sovereignty, and the judicialization of politics. Third, I draw on the judicial decisionmaking literature to develop a positive theory of transnational judicial governance. I highlight a key dimension of variation in transnational judicial governance decisionmaking: assertion of domestic governance authority versus deference to foreign governance authority. Then, treating judges as boundedly rational actors, I argue that this variation can be largely explained by the heuristics used by judges to make their decisions. Fourth, I explain the overall research design for the project. I conclude by discussing the broader implications of transnational judicial governance and identifying some of the important empirical and normative questions raised by the role of domestic courts in global governance that can guide future research. Public international law scholars and international relations scholars are increasingly collaborating. This paper is the first in a series of papers aimed at bringing together private international law and international relations, two disciplines which have for the most part remained separate, but which have the potential for substantial mutual gains.

Comment: The article does not deal with private international law in substantive detail (i.e. it simply provides definitions of phrases such as "choice of forum", "recognition and enforcement", and so on), but that is arguably not within its scope. Regardless, it is certainly a fascinating insight into the potential connections between the conflict of laws and the political sciences.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2006-08-18 21:34:492006-08-18 21:36:20Domestic Courts and Global Governance

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: German Court refuses Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Link to: German Court refuses Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages German Court refuses Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Link to: Publication: An Economic Analysis of Private International Law Link to: Publication: An Economic Analysis of Private International Law Publication: An Economic Analysis of Private International Law
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top