Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - Judicial Review, Foreign Relations and Global Administrative Law

  • from Part I - Identities and Interaction
  • Edited by Helmut Philipp Aust, Freie Universität Berlin, Thomas Kleinlein, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Book:
    Encounters between Foreign Relations Law and International Law
    Published online:
    20 May 2021
    Print publication:
    03 June 2021, pp 130-158
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    The chapter investigates the role of domestic courts in the management of foreign relations (FRs). Combining insights from ongoing trends towards the ‘administrativisation’ of the jurisdictional function and the theoretical approach of Global Administrative Law (GAL), it explores whether and to what extent domestic judicial bodies “administer” FRs, establish coordination relationships and potentially develop a ‘common language’. The GAL approach brings out the role of global regulators of courts in a domain where their influence is often underestimated. With a varying degree of awareness, courts contribute to determine States’ FRs, and this role in contemporary constitutional systems has become structural. However, a survey on the judicial practice in this field suggests that the intervention of judicial bodies may lead to greater disorder, conflict and de-stabilization, thus – and paradoxically – frustrating the purposes of ordering the structures of global governance underlying the GAL project.