EaRL · Expert Rule? Judges, Lawyers, and the Practices of Interpretation in International Criminal Law
Horizon 2020 — Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
- Duration
- 2018-09-01 → 2020-08-31
- EU contribution
- €200,195
- Participants
- 1
- Scheme
- MSCA-IF
Lines connect the coordinator with its partners.
Results in brief
Expert Rule? Judges, Lawyers, and the Practices of Interpretation in International Criminal Law
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of international courts has increased significantly, indicating a growing judicialization of global governance. At the same time, international judges have begun to change and potentially even create law through their decisions. In international criminal law, a particularly prominent example, international judges repeatedly describe the development of international criminal law as one of their main achievements. But have these courts been able to deliver on this objective? How far do judicial interpretations matter in global governance more broadly? In a political context in which international courts have come under increasing pressure in recent years, the project therefore adds important insights into the broader relevance of the decisions that these courts have rendered beyond the context of the individual case at hand. To answer these questions, the project had three main objectives: 1. Use legal theory to advance International Relations’ theorizing of the interpretation and development of international criminal law in practice; 2. Provide new empirical insights on the interpretive authority of international criminal courts in global governance; and 3. Research which sources of authority international courts have relied on to justify their interpretations of international criminal law. Methodologically, the project drew on a combination of qualitative and quantitative forms of content analysis, network analysis, qualitative interviews, and legal interpretive methods.
Data: CORDIS, © European Union
Project objective
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of international courts has increased significantly, indicating a growing judicialisation of global governance. At the same time, international judges have begun to change and potentially even create law through their decisions. In international criminal law, a particularly drastic example, international judges repeatedly described the development of international criminal law as one of their main achievements. But have these courts, 15 years after the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, been able to deliver on their objective? How far do judicial interpretations matter in global governance more broadly? Applying an innovative interdisciplinary approach that draws on legal theory, this project (EaRL) capitalises on the recent “practice turn” in International Relations theory to develop a novel theoretical and empirical account of interpretive judicial authority in global governance. EaRL is based on a systematic analysis of all 240 available judgements of international criminal and hybrid courts, including the International Criminal Court, the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). In addition, it uses over 40 in-depth expert interviews with international judges, staff at civil society organisations, and government representatives. Ideally located at iCourts, the University of Copenhagen’s globally leading Centre of Excellence for International Courts, EaRL will enable the experienced researcher to complete her interdisciplinary training and to make a timely contribution to the Centre’s impressive body of knowledge on international courts. In addition to its academic impact, EaRL ultimately aims to enhance the judgement-writing process at international criminal courts and to improve the general public’s understanding of international criminal justice.
Original text from CORDIS.
Participants
- KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET · KOBENHAVNCoordinatorDenmark
Links
Data: CORDIS, © European Union