Advertisement

Choosing for Europe: judicial incentives and legal integration in the European Union

  • Nicolas LampachEmail author
  • Arthur Dyevre
Article

Abstract

We investigate the factors influencing the choice of domestic judges to pass on cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union. While EU judicial scholars have typically relied on integration theory or ad hoc theories of adjudication to explain referral activity, our theoretical framework draws on general judicial decision making theory and focuses on the incentives and constraints national judges face when deciding whether to submit a references to the Court of Justice. Consistent with our rationalist account of judging, we find empirical evidence that the rate at which national courts refer cases is influenced by familiarity with EU law, power-seeking motives and political fragmentation.

Keywords

European Court of Justice Fixed effects negative binomial regression Judicial behaviour Legal integration 

JEL Classification

C26 C11 K10 K40 N34 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from ERC Starting Grant 638154 (EUTHORITY). We are grateful to Tomas Adamec, Angelina Atanasova, Gilian Bens, Monika Glavina, Frauke Petra Hein, David Ketch, Michal Ovádek and Anna Maria Tonikidou for research assistance.

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, K. J. (2001). Establishing the supremacy of European law: The making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ash, E., & MacLeod, W. B. (2015). Intrinsic motivation in public service: Theory and evidence from state supreme courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 58(4), 863–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burley, A.-M., & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization, 47(01), 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, C., & Kornhauser, L. (2017). Rational choice attitudinalism? European Journal of Law and Economics, 43(3), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrubba, C., & Murrah, L. (2005). Legal integration and use of the preliminary ruling process in the European Union. International Organization, 59, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrubba, C. J. (2005). Courts and compliance in international regulatory regimes. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 669–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, D., Moskowitz, T. J., & Shue, K. (2016). Decision-making under the gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1181–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claes, M. (2006). The national courts’ mandate in the European Constitution. Oxford, U.A.: Hart.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, T. S. (2009). The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 971–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. PNAS, 108(17), 6889–6892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Detlef, J. (2010). The veto player approach in macro-comparative politics: concepts and measurement. In T. König, M. Debus, & G. Tsebelis (Eds.), Veto players and decision-making in modern democracies, chapter 3 (pp. 43–68). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Detlef, J., Behm, T., Düpont, N., & Oberst, C. (2014). Pip–parties, institutions & preferences: Veto player (annual) [version 2014–09]. Chair of Comparative Politics, University of Greifswald.Google Scholar
  15. Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(03), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyevre, A. (2010). Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: Towards a general theory of judicial behaviour. European Political Science Review, 2(02), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyevre, A., & Lampach, N. (2018). The origins of regional integration: Untangling the effect of trade on judicial cooperation. International Review of Law and Economics, 56, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2014). Comparative constitutions project. characteristics of national comparative. version 2. https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/download-data/. Accessed 26 Oct 2018.
  19. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (2013). Reconsidering judicial preferences. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2013). The behavior of federal judges: A theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eurobarometer. (2016). Eurobarometer data service: Standard and special topic eurobarometer. Gesis Leibzig Institute for Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2016). Annual macro-economic database (AMECO). Irectorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN). Accessed on 17 October 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Fligstein, N., & Stone Sweet, A. (2002). Constructing politics and markets: An institutionalist account of European integration. American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1206–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gabel, M., & Carubba, C. (2009). The European Court of Justice as an engine of economic integration: Reconsidering evidence that the ECJ has expanded economic exchange in Europe.Google Scholar
  25. Gabel, M., Carrubba, C., Ainsley, C., & Beaudette, D. (2012). Of courts and commerce. The Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1125–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrett, G. (1995). The politics of legal integration in the European Union. International Organization, 49, 171–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Baird, V. A. (1998). On the legitimacy of national high courts. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammond, T. H., Bonneau, C. W., & Sheehan, R. S. (2005). Strategic behavior and policy choice on the U.S. supreme court. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hornuf, L., & Voigt, S. (2015). Analyzing preliminary references as the powerbase of the European Court of Justice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 39(2), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huneeus, A. (2013). Compliance with international court judgments decisions. In C. Romano, K. J. Alter, & Y. Shany (Eds.), The oxford handbook of international adjudication (pp. 438–463). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobi, T. (2009). The role of politics and economics in explaining variation in litigation rates in the U.S. states. The Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaremba, U. (2013). At the crossroads of national and European Union law-experiences of national judges in a multi-level legal order. Erasmus Law Review, 6, 191.Google Scholar
  33. Keefer, P. (2012). Database of political institutions: Changes and variable definitions. The World Bank: Development Research Group.Google Scholar
  34. Kelemen, D., & Pavone, T. (2016). Mapping European law. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(8), 1118–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54(03), 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayoral, J. A., Jaremba, U., & Nowak, T. (2014). Creating EU law judges: The role of generational differences, legal education and judicial career paths in national judges’ assessment regarding EU law knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy., 21, 1120–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melcarne, A. (2017). Careerism and judicial behavior. European Journal of Law and Economics, 44(2), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Melcarne, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2015). Judicial independence, judges’ incentives and efficiency. Review of Law & Economics, 11(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramseyer, J. M. (2012). Talent matters: Judicial productivity and speed in japan. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers, J. R., Flemming, R. B., & Bond, J. R. (2006). Institutional games and the US supreme court. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schneider, M. R. (2005). Judicial career incentives and court performance: An empirical study of the german labour courts of appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephenson, M. C. (2009). Legal realism for economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2), 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stone Sweet, A. (2004). The judicial construction of Europe. Oxford, U.A.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. (2012). The European Court of Justice, state noncompliance, and the politics of override. American Political Science Review, 106(01), 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. (1998a). The European Court and the national courts: A statistical analysis of preliminary references, 1961–1995. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 66–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sweet, A. S., & Brunell, T. L. (1998b). Constructing a supranational constitution: Dispute resolution and governance in the European Community. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sweet, A. S., & Brunell, T. L. (1998c). The European Court and the national courts: A statistical analysis of preliminary references, 1961–1995. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 66–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sweet, T. A. S., & Brunell, T. L. (1999). Data set on preliminary references in EC law. Robert Schuman Centre: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vanberg, G. (2005). The politics of constitutional review in Germany. Cambridge, U.A.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Vink, M., Claes, M., & Arnold, C. (2009). Explaining the use of preliminary references by domestic courts in eu member states: A mixed-method comparative analysis. In Conference paper Judicial Politics in the EU and Beyond 11th Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association.Google Scholar
  52. Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal.Google Scholar
  53. Weiler, J. H. H. (1994). A quiet revolution. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4), 510–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wind, M., Martinsen, D. S., & Rotger, G. P. (2009). The uneven legal push for Europe questioning variation when national courts go to Europe. European Union Politics, 10(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, Centre for Legal Theory and Empirical JurisprudenceKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations