Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDINAS, Elias
dc.contributor.authorGONZALEZ-OCANTOS, Ezequiel
dc.identifier.citationLaw and society review, 2019, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 889-919en
dc.descriptionFirst published online: 13 July 2019en
dc.description.abstractThe perception that a high court's decision is binding and final is a crucial prerequisite for its ability to settle political conflicts. Under what conditions are citizens more likely to accept controversial judicial rulings? Mass acceptance is determined, in part, by how rulings are framed during public debate. This paper takes a broad view of the strategies and actors that influence the discursive environment surrounding judgments, calling attention to hitherto unexamined determinants of mass acceptance. We theorize that third parties can boost acceptance by pledging compliance, and that courts can moderate opposition by compensating losers. We also look at how populist attacks on judiciaries, common in contemporary democracies, affect acceptance. We test these propositions using a survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court's Brexit decision, the most salient judgment handed down by this court to date. The paper moves the literature on courts and public opinion beyond the United States, and presents evidence backing largely untested assumptions at the heart of models of judicial behavior regarding the benefits of crafting rulings with an eye on the preferences of key audiences.en
dc.relation.ispartofLaw and society reviewen
dc.titleCompensation and compliance : sources of public acceptance of the U.K. Supreme Court's Brexit decisionen

Files associated with this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record