Competition and Compliance: Electoral Uncertainty and Implementation of Judgments from the International Human Rights Judiciary

Abstract

Why do political actors comply with judicial decisions they dislike even when they are offered few apparent benefits for doing so and the immediate costs of defiance appear minimal? This question is particularly salient for international human rights courts. These courts often render judgments that are controversial among both politicians and voters. Yet, even unpopular judgments are often complied with. One explanation is that politicians who are uncertain about their prospects for remaining in power value judicial review as a constraint on their opponents. Extant scholarship thus suggests that electoral uncertainty explains the introduction of judicial review in domestic constitutions. Less is known about whether political competition also promotes compliance with adverse judgments and whether political competition affects the acceptance of review by international courts. This article addresses these gaps the literature by showing that political competition promotes compliance with judgments from the European and Inter-American human rights courts.