Intolerant Justice : Conflict and Cooperation on Transnational Litigation

The idea of facing a court in a foreign country would typically cause serious doubt about whether the foreign legal process and its outcome would be fair. Intolerant Justice examines the political implications of those doubts regarding foreign justice and how they might hinder international cooperation among national legal systems. Should we allow our troops to stand trial in foreign courts? Should we extradite offenders to countries with a poor human rights record? Should we enforce rulings issued by foreign judges? This book examines the domestic political controversies over these sensitive legal questions.

In a globalized world, national legal systems often face dilemmas of international cooperation: Should our citizens stand trial in foreign courts that do not meet our standards? Should we extradite offenders to countries with a poor human rights record? Should we enforce rulings issued by foreign judges whose values are different from our own? Intolerant Justice argues that ethnocentrism--the human tendency to divide the world into superior in-groups and inferior out-groups--fuels fear and mistrust of foreign justice and sparks domestic political controversies: while skeptics portray foreign legal systems as dangerous and threatening, others dismiss these concerns. The book traces this dynamic in a range of fascinating cases, including the American hesitation to allow criminal trials of troops in the courts of NATO countries, the dilemma of extradition to China, and the European wariness toward U.S. civil judgments. Despite the growing role of law and courts in international politics, Intolerant Justice suggests that cooperation among legal systems often meets resistance and shows how this resistance can be overcome.