The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts
Abstract
Are international courts effective tools for international governance? Do they fulfil the expectations that led to their creation and empowerment? Why do some courts appear to be more effective than others, and do so such appearances reflect reality? Could their results have been produced by other mechanisms? This book evaluates the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals by comparing their stated goals to the actual outcomes they achieve. Using a theoretical model borrowed from social science, the book assesses their effectiveness by analysing key empirical data. Its first part is dedicated to theory and methodology, laying out the effectiveness model, explaining its different components, its promise and limits, and discussing the measurement challenges it faces. The second part analyses the role that indicators such as jurisdiction, judicial independence, legitimacy, and compliance play in achieving effectiveness. Part three applies the effectiveness model to the International Court of Justice, the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms (panels and Appellate Body), the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, reflecting the diversity of the field of international adjudication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory.
Udy, S. H., & Thompson, J. D. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092248 · Cited by 4,134
Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables
Krasner, S. D. (1982) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300018920 · Cited by 2,659
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/468061 · Cited by 1,816
Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?
Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300033427 · Cited by 1,540
The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe
Moravcsik, A. (2000) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081800551163 · Cited by 1,430
The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006) · Ethics & International Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x · Cited by 1,240
Why Do Nations Obey International Law?
Koh, H. H., Chayes, A., Chayes, A. H., & Franck, T. M. (1997) · The Yale Law Journal · doi:10.2307/797228 · Cited by 1,188
A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness
Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092843 · Cited by 931
The demand for international regimes
Keohane, R. O. (1982) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s002081830001897x · Cited by 886
Managing for Value: Organizational Strategy in for-Profit, Nonprofit, and Governmental Organizations
Moore, M. H. (2000) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764000291s009 · Cited by 803
Metadata
- Authors
- Shany, Y.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2014-01-30
- OpenAlex
- W1483536041
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 38.12
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199643295.001.0001
- The paper
- Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199643295.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.