Advertisement

Intolerant justice: ethnocentrism and transnational-litigation frameworks

  • Asif Efrat
  • Abraham L. Newman
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

In the age of globalization, a large number of transnational legal disputes come before domestic courts. To resolve these disputes, national legal systems have to cooperate with each other, yet their willingness to do so varies significantly. This article introduces the concept of transnational-litigation frameworks, which describes the extent to which national rules facilitate or constrain cooperation on litigation. Focusing on the socially embedded nature of law, we build an argument to explain variation in countries’ openness to legal cooperation. This argument suggests that ethnocentric societies are less willing to circumscribe their legal sovereignty and cooperate on transnational litigation. A cross-national analysis of legislative policy on extradition and foreign-judgment enforcement finds strong support for this argument; so does a sub-national analysis of foreign-judgments policy across the American states. This study highlights the importance of domestic law in global affairs as well as the role of socio-cultural factors in explaining the contours of globalization. It also suggests an important new research agenda concerning the interaction of domestic legal systems in an age of complex interdependence.

Keywords

Litigation Domestic courts Extradition International cooperation Ethnocentrism Nationalism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Amir Licht and three anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback. Guy Freedman provided able research assistance. Online appendix and replication materials are available on the Review of International Organizations’ webpage.

Supplementary material

11558_2018_9343_MOESM1_ESM.zip (230 kb)
ESM 1 (ZIP 230 kb)

References

  1. Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 942-958.Google Scholar
  2. Andreas, P., & Nadelmann, E. (2006). Policing the globe: Criminalization and crime control in international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, S., Leblang, D., & Pandya, S. S. (2018). Ethnocentrism reduces foreign direct investment. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 697–700.Google Scholar
  4. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An Empiricist's companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. (2001). Extradition: A review of Australia's law and policy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, M. (2001). Quiet influence: The representation of diffuse interests on trade policy, 1983-94. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(1), 45–80.Google Scholar
  7. Bättig, M. B., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National Institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63(2), 281–308.Google Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, S. P. (2004). Is transnational litigation different? University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 25(4), 1297–1393.Google Scholar
  9. Baumgartner, S. P. (2013). Understanding the obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments abroad. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 45, 965–1001.Google Scholar
  10. Bayram, A. B. (2015). What drives modern Diogenes? Individual values and cosmopolitan allegiance. European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 451–479.Google Scholar
  11. Bayram, A. B. (2017). Due deference: Cosmopolitan social identity and the psychology of legal obligation in international politics. International Organization, 71(S1), S137–S163.Google Scholar
  12. Bellinger, J. B., & Anderson, R. R. (2014). Tort tourism: The case for a Federal law on foreign judgment recognition. Virginia Journal of International Law, 54(3), 501–544.Google Scholar
  13. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.Google Scholar
  14. Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327–348.Google Scholar
  15. Burstein, P. (1991). Policy domains: Organization, culture, and policy outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 327–350.Google Scholar
  16. Butz, A. M., & Kehrberg, J. E. (2016). Estimating anti-immigrant sentiment for the American states using multi-level modeling and post-stratification, 2004–2008. Research & Politics, 3(2), 2053168016645830.Google Scholar
  17. Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143, 67–101.Google Scholar
  18. Chernyha, L. T., & Burg, S. L. (2012). Accounting for the effects of identity on political behavior: Descent, strength of attachment, and preferences in the regions of Spain. Comparative Political Studies, 45(6), 774–803.Google Scholar
  19. Cingranelli, D. L., Richards, D. L., & Clay, K. C. 2014. The CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Version 2014.04.14. Retrieved Feb 20, 2015 from http://www.humanrightsdata.com.
  20. de Figueiredo, R. J. P., & Elkins, Z. (2003). Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 171–188.Google Scholar
  21. Demleitner, N. V. (1999). Combating legal ethnocentrism: Comparative law sets boundaries. Arizona State Law Journal, 31, 737–762.Google Scholar
  22. Dodge, W. S. (2015). International comity in American law. Columbia Law Review, 115(8), 2071–2142.Google Scholar
  23. Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008). Measuring Globalisation – Gauging its Consequences. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Drezner, D. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), 53–78.Google Scholar
  25. Drury, Ian. 2009. An affront to British justice: Cameron attacks McKinnon hypocrites. Daily Mail, July 19.Google Scholar
  26. Dubinsky, P. R. (2008). Is transnational litigation a distinct field? The persistence of exceptionalism in American procedural law. Stanford Journal of International Law, 44, 301–357.Google Scholar
  27. Dugard, J., & Van den Wyngaert, C. (1998). Reconciling extradition with human rights. American Journal of International Law, 92(2), 187–212.Google Scholar
  28. Efrat, A. (2018). Resisting cooperation against crime: Britain's extradition controversy, 2003-2015. International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, 52(1), 118–128.Google Scholar
  29. Efrat, A., & Newman, A. L. (2016). Deciding to defer: The importance of fairness in resolving transnational jurisdictional conflicts. International Organization, 70(2), 409–441.Google Scholar
  30. Efrat, A., & Newman, A. L. (2018). Divulging data: Domestic determinants of international information sharing. Review of International Organizations, 13(3), 395–419.Google Scholar
  31. Efrat, A., Leblang, D., Liao, S., & Pandya, S. S. (2015). Babies across borders: The political economy of international child adoption. International Studies Quarterly, 59(4), 615–628.Google Scholar
  32. Finnemore, M., & Toope, S. J. (2001). Alternatives to "legalization": Richer views of law and politics. International Organization, 55(3), 743–758.Google Scholar
  33. Ford, S. (2012). A social psychology model of the perceived legitimacy of international criminal courts: Implications for the success of transitional justice mechanisms. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 45, 405–476.Google Scholar
  34. Friedman, L. M. (1986). The law and society movement. Stanford Law Review, 38(3), 763–780.Google Scholar
  35. Garb, L., & Lew, J. D. M. (2014). Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Deventer: Kluwer Law.Google Scholar
  36. Goodman, S. W. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring citizenship and integration policy: Past lessons and new approaches. Comparative Political Studies, 48(14), 1905–1941.Google Scholar
  37. Greif, G. L. (2009). The long-term aftermath of child abduction: Two case studies and implications for family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 273–286.Google Scholar
  38. Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
  39. Hirschl, R. (2008). The Judicialization of mega-politics and the rise of political courts. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 93–118.Google Scholar
  40. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94.Google Scholar
  41. Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., & Trappers, A. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized Trust in Europe: A cross-national multilevel study. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 198–223.Google Scholar
  42. Huber, U. (1947). De Conflictu Legum Diversarum in Diversis Imperiis. In E. G. Lorenzen (Ed.), Selected Articles on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. 162). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Huo, Z. (2011). Highlights of China’s new private international law act: From the perspective of comparative law. Revue Juridique Themis, 45(3), 637–684.Google Scholar
  44. Joint Committee on Human Rights. House of Lords and House of Commons. (2011). The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  45. Juenger, F. K. (1988). The recognition of money judgments in civil and commercial matters. American Journal of Comparative Law, 36, 1–39.Google Scholar
  46. Kaczmarek, S. C., & Newman, A. L. (2011). The long arm of the law: Extraterritoriality and the national implementation of foreign bribery legislation. International Organization, 65(4), 745–770.Google Scholar
  47. Kelemen, R. D., & Sibbitt, E. C. (2004). The globalization of American law. International Organization, 58(1), 103–136.Google Scholar
  48. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics: An introduction. International Organization, 25(3), 329–349.Google Scholar
  50. Kinder, D., & Kam, C. (2009). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Knoll, B. R., & Shewmaker, J. (2015). “Simply un-American”: Nativism and support for health care reform. Political Behavior, 37(1), 87–108.Google Scholar
  52. Kovar, J. D. (2000). Negotiations at the Hague conference for a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments. Statement before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, House of Representatives. June 29.Google Scholar
  53. Kulzer, B. (1968). Recognition of foreign country judgments in New York: The uniform foreign money-judgment recognition act. Buffalo Law Review, 18, 1–51.Google Scholar
  54. LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The economic consequences of legal origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2), 285–332Google Scholar
  55. Law Library of Congress. Global Legal Research Center (2013). Law on Extradition of Citizens. July. Available at https://www.loc.gov/law/help/extradition-of-citizens/extradition-of-citizens-chart.pdf (accessed December 16, 2018).
  56. Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 367–386.Google Scholar
  57. Leong, C.-H., & Ward, C. (2006). Cultural values and attitudes toward immigrants and multiculturalism: The case of the Eurobarometer survey on racism and xenophobia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 799–810.Google Scholar
  58. Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K. (2015). A global measure of judicial Independence. Journal of Law and Courts, 3(2), 223–256.Google Scholar
  59. Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for free trade: Self-interest, Sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. International Organization, 63(3), 425–457.Google Scholar
  60. Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2013). US versus them: Mass attitudes toward offshore outsourcing. World Politics, 65(4), 571–608.Google Scholar
  61. Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2002). Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization, 56(3), 477–513.Google Scholar
  62. Manton, M. T. (1935). Extradition of nationals. Temple Law Quarterly, 10, 12–24.Google Scholar
  63. Margalit, Y. (2012). Lost in globalization: International economic integration and the sources of popular discontent. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 484–500.Google Scholar
  64. Mattli, W., & Dietz, T. (2014). International arbitration and global governance: Contending theories and evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mezey, N. (2001). Law as culture. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 13, 35–67.Google Scholar
  66. Michaels, R. (2009). Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law (Vol. 8). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Miller, M. K. (2015). Electoral authoritarianism and human development. Comparative Political Studies, 48(12), 1526–1562.Google Scholar
  68. Mitchell, S. M., & Powell, E. J. (2011). Domestic law Goes global: Legal traditions and international courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mohanty, J., & Newhill, C. (2006). Adjustment of international adoptees: Implications for practice and a future research agenda. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(4), 384–395.Google Scholar
  70. Mutz, D. C., & Kim, E. (2017). The impact of in-group favoritism on trade preferences. International Organization, 71(4), 827–850.Google Scholar
  71. Nadelmann, E. A. (1993). The evolution of United States involvement in the international rendition of fugitive criminals. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 25, 813–885.Google Scholar
  72. New Zealand Law Commission. (2016). Modernising new zealand's extradition and mutual assistance laws. Available at https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC-R137.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.
  73. Newman, L. W. (2015). Enforcement of Money Judgments. Huntington: Juris.Google Scholar
  74. Plachta, M. (1999). (Non-)extradition of nationals: A Neverending story? Emory International Law Review, 13, 77–159.Google Scholar
  75. Putnam, T. L. (2016). Courts without borders: Law, politics, and U.S. extraterritoriality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Quintanilla, M. S., & Whytock, C. A. (2012). The new multipolarity in transnational litigation: Foreign courts, foreign judgments, and foreign law. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 18, 31–49.Google Scholar
  77. Raustiala, K. (2002). The architecture of international cooperation: Transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Virginia journal of international law, 43, 1–92.Google Scholar
  78. Raustiala, K. (2011). Does the constitution follow the flag? The evolution of territoriality in American law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Rudra, N., & Haggard, S. (2005). Globalization, democracy, and effective welfare spending in the developing world. Comparative Political Studies, 38(9), 1015–1049.Google Scholar
  80. Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. R. (1998). Law in the domains of culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Daniel, E., Benish-Weisman, M., & Boehnke, K. (2010). Cultural values and outgroup negativity: A cross-cultural analysis of early and late adolescents. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 635–651.Google Scholar
  82. Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the twenty-first century: How much ‘there’ is there? Journal of Politics, 69(3), 597–615.Google Scholar
  83. Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.Google Scholar
  84. Shearer, I. A. (1966). Non-extradition of nationals: A review and a proposal. Adelaide Law Review, 2(3), 273–309.Google Scholar
  85. Siegel, J. I., Licht, A. N., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Egalitarianism and international investment. Journal of Financial Economics, 102(3), 621–642.Google Scholar
  86. Siegel, J. I., Licht, A. N., & Schwartz, S. H. (2013). Egalitarianism, cultural distance, and foreign direct investment: A new approach. Organization Science, 234(4), 1174–1194.Google Scholar
  87. Silberman, L. (2002). Comparative jurisdiction in the international context: Will the proposed Hague judgments convention be stalled? DePaul Law Review, 52(2), 319–350.Google Scholar
  88. Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Simmons, A. J. (2017). Domestic attitudes towards international jurisdiction over human rights violations. Human Rights Review, 18(3), 321–345.Google Scholar
  90. Slaughter, A.-M. (1999). Judicial Globalization. Virginia Journal of International Law, 40, 1103–1124.Google Scholar
  91. Takahashi, K. (2006). A major reform of Japanese private international law. Journal of Private International Law, 2(2), 311–338.Google Scholar
  92. Thomson, W. E., & Jura, P. M. (2011). Confronting the new breed of transnational litigation: abusive foreign judgments. U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. Available at https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/TransnationalLitigation_AbusiveForeignJudgments.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.
  93. Toobin, J. (2008). The nine: Inside the secret world of the supreme court. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  94. Torelli, C. J., Chiu, C.-Y., Tam, K.-P., Au, A. K. C., & Keh, H. T. (2011). Exclusionary reactions to foreign cultures: Effects of simultaneous exposure to cultures in globalized space. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 716–742.Google Scholar
  95. U.S. Department of State. (2001). Report on international extradition submitted to congress pursuant to section 3203 of the emergency supplemental act, 2000 as enacted in the military construction appropriations act, 2001, public law 106–246 relating to plan Colombia. Available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/16162.htm. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.
  96. U.S. Senate. (1996). Extradition treaty with Switzerland. 104th Congress. Executive Report 104–32. July 30.Google Scholar
  97. UK Home Office. (2011). A review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117673/extradition-review.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.
  98. Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among U.S. whites: Ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology, 34(2), 149–166.Google Scholar
  99. Wasserstein-Fassberg, C. (2013). Private international law (Vol. I). Jerusalem: Nevo.Google Scholar
  100. Whytock, C. A. (2009). Domestic courts and global governance. Tulane Law Review, 84(1), 67–123.Google Scholar
  101. Wright, M. (2011). Policy regimes and normative conceptions of nationalism in mass public opinion. Comparative Political Studies, 44(5), 598–624.Google Scholar
  102. Zagaris, B. (1999). Extradition, evidence gathering, and their relatives in the twenty-first century: A U.S. defense counsel perspective. Fordham International Law Journal, 23(5), 1403–1443.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and StrategyInterdisciplinary Center (IDC) HerzliyaHerzliyaIsrael
  2. 2.Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and Department of GovernmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations