Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:39:30.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Institutionalism and Judicial Decision-Making

Ideas, Institutions, and Actors in French High Court Hate Speech Rulings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Erik BleichOpen the ORCID record for Erik Bleich[Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This article integrates insights from different veins of historical institutionalism to offer an analytical framework that specifies how ideas, institutions, and actors account for key aspects of judicial decision-making, including change over time. To the extent that ideas are widely distributed, highly salient, and stable among actors in the judicial field, they can affect patterns of rulings in a particular issue area. The distribution, salience, and stability of norms, however, may change over time for reasons embedded in the institutional structures themselves. Existing policies, laws, or treaties create the potential for new actors to enter the judicial field through processes that theorists of institutional change have identified as intercurrence, displacement, conversion, layering, and drift. New actors can shift the relative salience of ideas already rooted in the judicial field. This ideational salience amplification can alter patterns of judicial decision-making without the fundamental and often costly battles involved in wholesale paradigm change. French high court hate speech decisions provide the context for the development of this framework and serve to illustrate the dynamic. The author uses evidence from an original dataset of every ruling by the French Court of Cassation regarding racist hate speech from 1972 through 2012 to explain the varying propensity of the high court to restrict speech that targets majorities compared to minorities.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , January 2018, pp. 53 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2017 

References

Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Béland, Daniel. 2009. “Ideas, Institutions, and Policy Change.” Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 5: 701–18. doi: 10.1080/13501760902983382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, Daniel, and Cox, Robert Henry, eds. 2010. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey T., eds. 2014. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Sheri. 2001. “Ideas, Norms and Culture in Political Analysis.” Comparative Politics 33, no. 2: 231–50. doi: 10.2307/422380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleich, Erik. 2003. Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleich, Erik. 2017. Supplementary material for “Historical Institutionalism and Judicial Decision Making: Ideas, Institutions, and Actors in French High Court Hate Speech Rulings.” At https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887117000272.Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik, and Pekkanen, Robert. 2013. “How to Report Interview Data.” In Mosley, Layna, ed., Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, Mark, Helgadottir, Oddny, and Kring, William. 2016. “Ideas and Historical Institutionalism.” In Fioretos, Orfeo, Falleti, Tulia G., and Sheingate, Adam, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandwein, Pamela. 2011. “Law and American Political Development.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7: 187–216. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-042710-092852.Google Scholar
Cichowski, Rachel A. 2006. “Courts, Rights, and Democratic Participation.” Comparative Political Studies 39, no. 1: 50–75. doi: 10.1177/0010414005283217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and Gillman, Howard, eds. 1999. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conran, James, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2016. “Institutional Change.” In Fioretos, Orfeo, Falleti, Tulia G., and Sheingate, Adam, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyevre, Arthur. 2010. “Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behaviour.” European Political Science Review 2, no. 2: 297–327. doi: 10.1017/S1755773910000044.Google Scholar
Edwards, Harry T. 2006. “Judicial Norms: A Judge's Perspective.” In Drobak, John N., ed., Norms and the Law. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 2000. “Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.” Political Research Quarterly 53, no. 3: 625–61. doi: 10.1177/106591290005300309.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stephen M. 2005. “The Rule of Law or the Rule of Politics? Harmonizing the Internal and External Views of Supreme Court Decision Making.” Law & Social Inquiry 30, no. 1: 89–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb00347.x.Google Scholar
Fon, Vincy, and Parisi, Francesco. 2006. “Judicial Precedents in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic Analysis.” International Review of Law and Economics 26, no. 4: 519–35. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2007.01.005.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. “What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making.” Law & Social Inquiry 26, no. 2: 465–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2001.tb00185.x.Google Scholar
González Ocantos, Ezequiel. 2014. “Persuade Them or Oust Them: Crafting Judicial Change and Transitional Justice in Argentina.” Comparative Politics 46, no. 4: 479–98. doi: 10.5129/001041514812522725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98, no. 2: 243–60. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001121.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25, no. 3: 275–96. doi: 10.2307/422246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilbink, Lisa. 2012. “The Origins of Positive Judicial Independence.” World Politics 64, no. 4 (October): 587–621. doi: 10.1017/S0043887112000160.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2012. “Crafting Courts in New Democracies: Ideology and Judicial Council Reforms in Three Mexican States.” Comparative Politics 44, no. 4: 439–58. doi: 10.5129/001041512801282988.Google Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A., eds. 2013. Consequential Courts: Judicial Roles in Global Perspective. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2007. “Party, Policy, or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?” American Political Science Review 101, no. 2: 321–38. doi: 10.1017.S0003055407070190.Google Scholar
Keller, Helen, and Sweet, Alec Stone, eds. 2008. A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Desmond S., and Smith, Rogers M.. 2014. “‘Without Regard to Race’: Critical Ideational Development in Modern American Politics.” Journal of Politics 76, no. 4: 958–71. doi: 10.1017/s0022381614000541.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96, no. 4: 697–712. doi: doi:10.1017/S0003055402000394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Yonatan, and Voeten, Erik. 2012. “Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights.” British Journal of Political Science 42, no. 2: 413–39. doi: 10.1017/S0007123411000433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2010a. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, eds., Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen, eds. 2010b. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Ronen, and Shalev, Michael. 2010. “Power and the Ascendance of New Economic Policy Ideas: Lessons from the 1980s Crisis in Israel.” World Politics 62, no. 3 (July): 459–95. doi: 10.1017/S0043887110000109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, Verónica, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2013. “Human Rights Prosecutions and the Participation Rights of Victims in Latin America.” Law & Society Review 47, no. 4: 873–907. doi: 10.1111/lasr.12040.Google Scholar
Montmirail, Cécile. 2009. La Preuve par l’agrif. Paris, France: Godefroy de Bouillon.Google Scholar
MRAP. 1984. Chronique du Flagrant Racisme. Paris, France: Editions La Découverte.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 1996. “Institutions and Intercurrence: Theory Building in the Fullness of Time.” Nomos 38: 111–46.Google Scholar
Parsons, Craig. 2003. A Certain Idea of Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J., and Kritzer, Herbert M.. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96, no. 2: 305–20. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402000187.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.’” European Political Science Review 2, no. 1: 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S175577390999021X.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, The ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law.” American Political Science Review 82, no. 1: 89–108. doi: 10.2307/1958060.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 2008. “Historical Institutionalism and the Study of Law.” In Caldeira, Gregory A., Daniel Kelemen, R., and Whittington, Keith E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, David A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, Steven K., and Benford, Robert D.. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51, no. 4: 464–81. doi: 10.2307/2095581.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec. 2000. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2000. “Once More Unto the Breach: PostBehavioralist Approaches to Judicial Politics.” Law & Social Inquiry 25, no. 2: 601–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2000.tb00974.x.Google Scholar
Yom, Sean. 2015. “From Methodology to Practice: Inductive Iteration in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 48, no. 5: 616–44. doi: 10.1177/0010414014554685.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bleich supplementary material

Bleich supplementary material 1

Download Bleich supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 216.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bleich supplementary material

Bleich supplementary material 2

Download Bleich supplementary material(File)
File 18.4 KB