Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:07:58.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding to Defer: The Importance of Fairness in Resolving Transnational Jurisdictional Conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2016

Asif Efrat  and
Abraham L. Newman
Get access

Abstract

The cross-border movement of people, goods, and information frequently results in legal disputes that come under the jurisdiction of multiple states. The principle of deference—acceptance of another state's exercise of legal authority—is one mechanism to manage such jurisdictional conflicts. Despite the importance of deference in international law and cooperation, little is known about the causes of variation in its use. In this article, we develop a theory of deference that focuses on the role that domestic institutions and norms play in ensuring procedural and substantive fairness. We test this theory in an original data set concerning accession practices in the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Our findings offer considerable support for the idea that states evaluate partners on the likelihood that they can offer a fair legal process. Exploring empirically the efforts against parental child abduction, we offer a nuanced account of the link between domestic institutions and norms and international cooperation. This account suggests that greater attention should be paid to the use of deference as a mechanism to manage the conflicts posed by globalization.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , Spring 2016 , pp. 409 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albin, Cecilia. 2001. Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allee, Todd, and Peinhardt, Clint. 2010. Delegating Differences: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bargaining over Dispute Resolution Provisions. International Studies Quarterly 54 (1):1–26.Google Scholar
Amurgo-Pacheco, Alberto. 2007. Mutual Recognition Agreements and Trade Diversion: Consequences for Developing Nations. HEI Working Paper 20/2006. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
Anton, A.E. 1981. The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 30 (3):537–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Committee on Foreign and Comparative Law. 2001. Survey on Foreign Recognition of US Money Judgments. The Record 56 (3):378–411.Google Scholar
Bach, David, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2010a. Transnational Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: Evidence from Insider Trading Regulation. International Organization 64 (3):505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, David, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2010b. Governing Lipstick and Lipitor: Capacity, Sequencing, and Power in International Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Regulation. Review of International Political Economy 17 (4):665–95.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael, Strezhnev, Anton, and Voeten, Erik. 2015. Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Available at <http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/05/0022002715595700.abstract>. Accessed 22 January 2016..+Accessed+22+January+2016.>Google Scholar
Barbour, Emily C. 2010. The SPEECH Act: The Federal Response to “Libel Tourism.” CRS Report R41417. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, Cherif M. 2014. International Extradition: United States Law and Practice. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bättig, Michèle B., and Bernauer, Thomas. 2009. National Institutions and Global Public Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative in Climate Change Policy? International Organization 63 (2):281–308.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul Schiff. 2002. The Globalization of Jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2):311–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blader, Steven L. 2007. What Determines People's Fairness Judgments? Identification and Outcomes Influence Procedural Justice Evaluations Under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (6):986–94.Google Scholar
Bliesener, Dirk. 1994. Fairness and Choice of Law: A Critique of the Political Rights-Based Approach to the Conflict of Laws. American Journal of Comparative Law 42 (4):687–710.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Reiter, Dan, and Zorn, Christopher. 2003. Nonproportional Hazards and Event History Analysis in International Relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (1):33–53.Google Scholar
Brilmayer, Lea. 1989. Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law. Yale Law Journal 98 (7):1277–319.Google Scholar
Bruch, Carol S. 2000. Religious Law, Secular Practices, and Children's Human Rights in Child Abduction Cases Under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33 (1):49–58.Google Scholar
Busch, Marc L. 2007. Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade. International Organization 61 (4):735–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxbaum, Hannah L. 2001. Conflict of Economic Laws: From Sovereignty to Substance. Virginia Journal of International Law 42 (4):931–77.Google Scholar
Cao, Xun. 2012. Global Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: A Network Explanation of Policy Changes. World Politics 64 (3):375–425.Google Scholar
Cingranelli, David L., Richards, David L., and Clay, K. Chad. 2014. The CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Available at <http://www.humanrightsdata.com>. Accessed 22 December 2015..+Accessed+22+December+2015.>Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 2004. Priorities for Bilateral/Regional Trade Related Activities in the Field of Mutual Recognition Agreements for Industrial Products and Related Technical Dialogue. Working Paper SEC(2004)1072. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Cremer, De, David, Lieven Brebels, and Sedikides, Constantine. 2008. Being Uncertain About What? Procedural Fairness Effects as a Function of General Uncertainty and Belongingness Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (6):1520–25.Google Scholar
Dodge, William S. 2015. International Comity in American Law. Columbia Law Review 115 (8):2071–142.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel W. 2007. All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, William. 2000. Action in the Support of the Hague Child Abduction Convention: A View from the Permanent Bureau. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33 (1):103–23.Google Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Pollack, Mark A., eds. 2012. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eroglu, Muzaffer. 2008. Multinational Enterprises and Tort Liabilities: An Interdisciplinary and Comparative Examination. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2014. Domestic Institutions Beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach. World Politics 66 (2):331–63.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52 (2):269–305.Google Scholar
Freeman, Marilyn. 1998. The Effects and Consequences of International Child Abduction. Family Law Quarterly 32 (3):603–21.Google Scholar
Gerhart, Peter M., and Baron, Michael S.. 2003. Understanding National Treatment: The Participatory Vision of the WTO. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 14 (3):505–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greif, Geoffrey L. 2009. The Long-term Aftermath of Child Abduction: Two Case Studies and Implications for Family Therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy 37 (4):273–86.Google Scholar
Greif, Geoffrey L., and Hegar, Rebecca L.. 1991. Parents Whose Children Are Abducted by the Other Parent: Implications for Treatment. American Journal of Family Therapy 19 (3):215–25.Google Scholar
Kaczmarek, Sara, and Newman, Abraham. 2011. The Long Arm of the Law: Extraterritoriality and the National Implementation of Foreign Bribery Legislation. International Organization 65 (4):745–70.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263–91.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith. 2007. Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements. American Political Science Review 101 (3):573–89.Google Scholar
Lai, Brian, and Reiter, Dan. 2000. Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816–1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (2):203–27.Google Scholar
Porta, La, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2008. The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature 46 (2):285–332.Google Scholar
Lavenex, Sandra. 2007. Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (5):762–79.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett Ashley. 1999. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation. American Journal of Political Science 43 (4):979–1002.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett Ashley, Mattes, Michaela, and Vogel, Jeremy S.. 2009. Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):461–76.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 2003. Applications of Prospect Theory to Political Science. Synthese 135 (2):215–41.Google Scholar
Lindhorst, Tarin, and Edelson, Jeffrey L.. 2012. Battered Women, Their Children, and International Law: The Unintended Consequences of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, Nigel. 2011. A Statistical Analysis of Applications Made in 2008 Under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Part I—Global Report. Preliminary Document 8A. The Hague, Netherlands: Hague Conference on Private International Law.Google Scholar
Lutz, Robert E. 2007. A Lawyer's Handbook for Enforcing Foreign Judgments in the United States and Abroad. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magnuson, William. 2012. The Domestic Politics of International Extradition. Virginia Journal of International Law 52 (4):839–901.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward, Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2002. Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. International Organization 56 (3):477–513.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Henderson, Errol A.. 2013. The World Religion Dataset, 1945–2010: Logic, Estimates, and Trends. International Interactions 39 (3):265–91.Google Scholar
Martin, Lisa. 2000. Democratic Commitments: Legislatures and International Cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mattli, Walter. 2001. Private Justice in a Global Economy: From Litigation to Arbitration. International Organization 55 (4):919–47.Google Scholar
Mattli, Walter, and Woods, Ngaire, eds. 2009. The Politics of Global Regulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, Ralf. 2009. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 8, edited by Wolfrum, Rüdiger, 1–13. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mirabella, Julia Grace. 2012. Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial. Boston University International Law Journal 30 (1):229–69.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Powell, Emilia Justyna. 2011. Domestic Law Goes Global: Legal Traditions and International Courts. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L. 2008. Protectors of Privacy: Regulating Personal Data in the Global Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolaidis, Kalypso, and Egan, Michelle. 2001. Transnational Market Governance and Regional Policy Externality: Why Recognize Foreign Standards. Journal of European Public Policy 8 (3):454–73.Google Scholar
Nicolaidis, Kalypso, and Shaffer, Gregory. 2005. Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government. Law and Contemporary Problems 68 (3/4):263–317.Google Scholar
North, P.M. 1979. The Draft UK/US. Judgments Convention: A British Viewpoint. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 1 (1):219–39.Google Scholar
Pérez-Vera, Elisa. 1981. Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The Hague, Netherlands: Hague Conference on Private International Law. Available at <http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=publications.details&pid=2779>. Accessed 27 September 2015..+Accessed+27+September+2015.>Google Scholar
Pollack, Mark A., and Shaffer, Gregory C.. 2009. When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2007. Chevronizing Foreign Relations Law. Yale Law Journal 116 (6):1170–228.Google Scholar
Powell, Emilia Justyna, and Staton, Jeffrey K.. 2009. Domestic Judicial Institutions and Human Rights Treaty Violation. International Studies Quarterly 53 (1):149–74.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games. International Organization 42 (3):427–60.Google Scholar
Putnam, Tonya L. 2009. Courts Without Borders: Domestic Sources of US Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere. International Organization 63 (3):459–90.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal. 2009. Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal, and Victor, David G.. 2004. The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization 58 (2):277–309.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Susanne K. 2007. Mutual Recognition as a New Mode of Governance. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (5):667–81.Google Scholar
Schnitzer-Reese, Ericka A. 2004. International Child Abduction to Non-Hague Convention Countries: The Need for an International Family Court. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 2 (1):Article 7.Google Scholar
Sell, Susan K. 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory. 2002. Reconciling Trade and Regulatory Goals: The Prospects and Limits of New Approaches to Transatlantic Governance Through Mutual Recognition and Safe Harbor Agreements. Columbia Journal of European Law 9 (1):29–77.Google Scholar
Silberman, Linda. 2000. Hague Child Abduction Convention Turns Twenty: Gender Politics and Other Issues. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33 (1):221–50.Google Scholar
Silberman, Linda. 2002. Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention Be Stalled? DePaul Law Review 52 (2):319–50.Google Scholar
Silberman, Linda. 2014. United States Supreme Court Hague Abduction Decisions: Developing a Global Jurisprudence. Journal of Comparative Law 9 (1):49–65.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Danner, Allison. 2010. Credible Commitments and the International Criminal Court. International Organization 64 (2):225–56.Google Scholar
Singer, David. 2007. Regulating Capital: Setting Standards for the International Financial System. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2003. A Global Community of Courts. Harvard International Law Journal 44 (1):191–219.Google Scholar
Spilman, Sarah K. 2006. Child Abduction, Parents’ Distress, and Social Support. Violence and Victims 21 (2):149–65.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K., and Moore, Will H.. 2011. Judicial Power in Domestic and International Politics. International Organization 65 (3):553–87.Google Scholar
Stephens, Beth, Chomsky, Judith, Green, Jennifer, Hoffman, Paul, and Ratner, Michael, eds. 2008. International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts. 2nd ed. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Tafara, Ethiopis, and Peterson, Robert. 2007. A Blueprint for Cross-Border Access to US Investors: A New International Framework. Harvard International Law Journal 48 (1):31–68.Google Scholar
Verdier, Pierre-Hughes. 2011. Mutual Recognition in International Finance. Harvard International Law Journal 55 (1):56–107.Google Scholar
US Department of State. 2008. Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Vesneski, William M., Lindhorst, Taryn, and Edelson, Jeffrey L.. 2011. US Judicial Implementation of the Hague Convention in Cases Alleging Domestic Violence. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 62 (2):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Geoffrey P.R. 2013. International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study. International Organization 67 (1):105–40.Google Scholar
Wangnerud, Lena. 2009. Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12:51–69.Google Scholar
Whytock, Christopher A. 2009. Domestic Courts and Global Governance. Tulane Law Review 84 (1):67–123.Google Scholar
Whytock, Christopher A., and Robertson, Cassandra Burke. 2011. Forum Non Conveniens and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Columbia Law Review 111 (7):1444–521.Google Scholar
Wurmnest, Wolfgang. 2005. Recognition and Enforcement of US Money Judgments in Germany. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23 (1):175–200.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Efrat and Newman supplementary material S1

Efrat and Newman supplementary material

Download Efrat and Newman supplementary material S1(File)
File 4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Efrat and Newman supplementary material S2

Efrat and Newman supplementary material

Download Efrat and Newman supplementary material S2(File)
File 22.3 MB