Judicial Globalization in the Service of Self-Government
2004
- 1,129Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,129
- Downloads787
- Abstract Views342
Article Description
This working paper considers potential justifications for the democratic legitimacy of what Anne-Marie Slaughter has termed, “judicial globalization” – the reliance by U.S. judges on international and foreign legal materials in the interpretation of domestic law. Toward this end the paper offers two and a half tentative answers, one distinctive to the U.S., the other(s) with general applicability. The distinctively American response, however conservative in theory, suggests that the original understanding of the Constitution supports a strong presumption that the Constitution, and Federal law generally, be interpreted in a way that is consistent with international law, particularly with regard to fundamental rights. The more general and adventurous response, which argues that courts, in their capacity as democratic institutions charged with the responsibility of rendering principled judgments, may consult at least international law: a) to exercise a distinctive type of foreign affairs authority as well, and; b) to better discern the fundamental commitments of the American people. The balance of the paper defines the project with greater precision, then fleshes out the American and more general ways forward.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know