On the Authority of International Courts

When are international courts recognized as authorities – and when do they meet resistance? WZB researcher Dana Burchardt has developed an analytical model that systematically examines this question. In her new book, she compares the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States.

International courts exist in many regions of the world and with very different jurisdictions. Some are widely recognized, while others come under political pressure or lose importance. To explain how such differences emerge, Dana Burchardt developed the so-called MOC model. The acronym stands for Motivation, Opportunity and Constraints. These three factors form a framework for explaining the relationship between international courts and different actors.

Motivation describes the reasons why actors tend to recognize a court’s authority in the first place. These can be shared values such as the rule of law and human rights, but also concrete interests such as settling disputes or strategic political considerations. Opportunity refers to the legal and structural conditions that determine whether a court can be seized at all and whether its decisions can be implemented. This includes, for example, rules on jurisdiction and access requirements. Constraints, finally, comprise the obstacles that can make recognition of a court more difficult. These include a lack of knowledge about the court and its jurisprudence, limited financial resources, or pressure from other actors not to recognize the court’s authority.

In her book, Burchardt compares the development of the authority of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court). The comparison shows that authority relations are not generally stronger for one of the two courts. What matters more is which group of actors is being considered. For example, the ECOWAS Court has particularly strong authority relations in the field of human rights vis-à-vis non-governmental organizations. For the ECtHR, this is the case, for instance, with respect to national courts. In relation to the governments of member states, the ties are rather moderate for both courts.

Over time, both courts also show similar developments, although in the case of the ECtHR over a much longer period. At first, authority relations are relatively weak, then they expand significantly, before stabilizing and in some cases partially receding again. These changes can be traced back to legal, political and psychological factors. These include the expansion of the courts’ jurisdiction or access to court, changing political conditions such as the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity among member states, as well as psychological effects such as group dynamics or a status quo bias.

The analysis thus shows that the authority of international courts is not a fixed condition. It emerges and changes through the interaction of institutional rules, political context and the respective room for maneuver of the actors involved.

The findings are not only relevant for academic debate, but also have practical significance. A better understanding of the influencing factors can help international courts develop targeted strategies to strengthen their authority. At the same time, the model offers valuable guidance for the design of new courts and institutions.

29.05.2026 / MP