Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Judicialization in international security: A theoretical concept and some preliminary evidence


Author Info

  • Mondré, Aletta
  • Zangl, Bernhard
Registered author(s):


    Many claim a process of judicialization of international dispute settlement procedures is taking place. In order to capture this ongoing process we introduce an analytical framework to assess the degree of judicialization of international dispute settlement procedures. We then proceed to present preliminary results of applying this framework to the procedure and practice of dispute settlement in the United Nations Security Council. In our concept, judicialization means that international dispute settlement procedures increasingly incorporate the normative principle of impartiality, i.e. the principle of a comparable treatment of comparable breaches of law. We use a graded scale ranging from purely diplomatic to predominantly judicial procedures to assess the degree of judicialization of any given dispute settlement procedure. From our institutionalist point of view, it is entirely an empirical question whether - and if so when - judicialized dispute settlement procedures lead to a corresponding practice of judicialized dispute settlement. For this reason we analyze in a second step the corresponding practice of dispute settlement. The degree of judicialization of the dispute settlement procedure within the framework of the United Nations Security Council remains low. Nonetheless, our comparison of the periods 1974-1983 and 1990-1999 suggests so far an increasing judicialization of the dispute settlement practice within the Security Council. -- Viele Beobachter stellen eine Judizialisierung von internationalen Streitbeilegungsverfahren fest. Um diesen fortlaufenden Prozess erfassen zu können, stellen wir ein Analyseraster für die Bestimmung des Ausmaßes von Vergerichtlichung internationaler Streitbeilegungsverfahren vor. Danach präsentieren wir vorläufige empirische Ergebnisse der Anwendung unseres Rasters auf das Verfahren und die Praxis der Streitbeilegung im Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen. Unserem Konzept zu Folge bedeutet Judizialisierung (Vergerichtlichung) von internationalen Streitbeilegungsverfahren die zunehmende Einbeziehung des normativen Grundsatzes von Unparteilichkeit, also einer Gleichbehandlung von gleichartigen Rechtsverletzungen. Wir verwenden eine abgestufte Skala, die von rein diplomatischen bis zu vornehmlich gerichtsförmigen Verfahren reicht, zur Bestimmung des Grades von Vergerichtlichung beliebiger Streitbeilegungsverfahren. Aus unserer institutionalistischen Perspektive ist es eine empirische Frage, ob - und wenn ja, wann - juridizialisierte Streitbeilegungsverfahren zu einer entsprechenden Praxis der Streitbeilegung führen. Aus diesem Grund untersuchen wir in einem zweiten Schritt die Praxis der Streitbeilegung. Das Ausmaß von Vergerichtlichung des Verfahrens im Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen ist weiterhin gering. Nichtsdestotrotz weist bislang der Vergleich der Zeiträume 1974-1983 und 1990-1999 auf eine zunehmende Judizialisierung der Streitbeilegungspraxis im Sicherheitsrat hin.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State in its series TranState Working Papers with number 27.

    as in new window
    Date of creation: 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:27

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Parkallee 39, 28209 Bremen
    Phone: 0421/218-4362
    Fax: 0421/218-7540
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research



    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Garrett, Geoffrey, 1995. "The politics of legal integration in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(01), pages 171-181, December.
    2. Smith, James McCall, 2000. "The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(01), pages 137-180, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)



    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.