Does a Professional Judiciary Induce More Compliance? Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights

39 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2012 Last revised: 29 Mar 2012

See all articles by Erik Voeten

Erik Voeten

Georgetown University - Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service (SFS)

Date Written: March 27, 2012

Abstract

Are judgments written by professional judges more likely to elicit compliance? I exploit exogenous variation in the composition of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) chambers to evaluate this question. I find that judgments written by panels with a relatively high proportion of career judges are more likely to be implemented quickly than are judgments that come from panels with high proportions of former academics, legal diplomats, politicians, or private practitioners. This suggests that the performance of international courts could be improved by changing their professional composition. Theoretically, it implies that compliance is not merely a function of political incentives but also of the characteristics of those who interpret international law. Professional judges are both important compliance constituencies and consumers of legal reasoning. I build on sociological theories of the legal profession to explain why professional judges may be more amenable to judgments written by other professional judges.

Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, international courts, compliance

Suggested Citation

Voeten, Erik, Does a Professional Judiciary Induce More Compliance? Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights (March 27, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029786 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2029786

Erik Voeten (Contact Author)

Georgetown University - Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service (SFS) ( email )

Washington, DC 20057
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
196
Abstract Views
1,294
Rank
279,881
PlumX Metrics