A. , F. Schauer, and ;. E. Chemerinsky, For defenses of judicial supremacy see among others, Defense of Judicial Review: The Perils of Popular Constitutionalism, vol.110, pp.673-690, 1997.

J. H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust, A Theory of Judicial Review, vol.280, p.p, 1981.

R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, 1985.

C. Zurn, Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review, p.18, 2009.

S. R. Dworkin, . Law's-empire, . Cambridge, and . Mass, , pp.355-399, 1986.

O. Eisgruber, , p.87

F. Michelman, Conceptions of Democracy in American Constitutional Argument: The Case of Pornography Regulation, quoted by Jürgen Habermas in Between Facts and Norms, vol.56, p.273, 1989.

I. Habermas, , pp.323-347

J. Rawls, Courting Deliberation: An Essay on Deliberative Democracy in the American Judicial System, Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason And Politics, vol.112, p.313, 1997.

O. C. Christodoulidis, Beyond the Republican Revival, Yale Law Journal, vol.97, p.1539, 1998.

R. Cordray and . Cordray, The Philosophy of Certiorari: Jurisprudential Considerations in Supreme Court Case Selection, vol.82, p.390, 2004.

, Stat, vol.102, p.1257, 1988.

R. J. Owens, D. A. Simon, and ;. Gooch, Ideological Polarization on the Supreme Court, Trends in the Court's Institutional Environment and Across Regimes, American Politics Research, vol.53, issue.6, p.633, 1937.

. Hartnett, Questioning, p.1644

V. Armstrong and C. A. Johnson, This study however is old. For a more complete study on factors affecting the issues the Supreme Court will review, see V. A. Baird, Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda, Polity, vol.15, p.p, 1982.

G. A. See and . Caldeira, Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court, Journal Law, Economics & Organization, vol.15, p.550, 1999.

V. Baird, , pp.85-86

S. T. Hochmann, , p.87, 2008.

E. Zoller, Freedom of Expression, quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435, vol.765, p.777, 1978.

G. See and . Haarscher, Liberté d'expression

R. See-for-example, ;. Pound, and R. Pound, The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, vol.8, issue.8, pp.489-516, 1908.

. Frohwerk, , p.204, 1919.

D. , , p.855, 1966.

, Californian gay marriage by referendum was judged unconstitutional by the North 1311 Lawrence v, p.558, 2003.

M. Klarman, The opinions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court were released in reaction to the proposal to vote the legalization of same-sex civil union as a compromise following the backlash against judicial legalization of same-sex marriage in Goodridge. 1314 Data from Klarman, vol.565, pp.97-99, 2003.

. Klarman-ibid, 1316 Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d, vol.862, p.103, 2009.

, On the civil status of homosexuals, see ECtHR, Cossey v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 10843/84, 27 September 1990 and ECtHR, 2002.

. See-for-example, . Ecthr, K. V. Schalk, and . Austria, ECtHR, Pajic v. Croatia, Appl. No, issue.30141, 2010.

S. V. Ecthr and . France, , 2011.

M. C. Ecthr and C. A. , Romania, Appl, p.12, 2016.

S. P. Johnson, Most such applications were struck down or dismissed, Chronological List of Decisions and Judgments (homosexuality related cases), pp.201-206

O. M. Ecthr and . Hungary, , vol.5, 2016.

. Ecthr, O. V. Vejdeland, . Sweden-;-ecthr, D. D. Mladina, and . Ljubljana-v, Slovenia, Appl. No, 2012.

B. Ecthr and O. V. Poland, ECtHR, Alekseyev v. Russia, Appl. Nos, p.12, 2007.

J. M. Ecthr, v. the United Kingdom, Appl, issue.37060, 2010.

S. Ecthr and K. , Austria, op. cit., also more recently Oliari and Others v Italy

D. Ecthr, United Kingdom (Plenary, 1981.

S. Ecthr and A. Grady, Nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, 1999.

S. Ecthr, . Da-silva-mouta-v, and . Portugal, , 1999.

. Ecthr, . Taddeucci-&-mccall-v, and . Italy, , 2016.

E. B. Ecthr and . France, , p.22, 2008.

, entered into Force on First of April 2005 with 10 Ratifications. 1355 To this day 9 states have not signed the Protocol and 27 states have not ratified it. List of Contracting states having signed and ratified, vol.177, 2000.

, State may not force parents to put their children in public school only), Price v, vol.510, 1925.

, Right to keep the family together) 1414 Right to intimate association, vol.438, p.536, 1942.

G. and C. , , p.479, 1965.

, 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505, p.833, 1992.

O. C. Bowers, , pp.190-191

. Ibid, , pp.191-193

, or more protective statutes, regulations, ordinances, or policies in the future unless the state constitution is first amended to permit such measures.'' ibid., at 627. 1429 ''No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences

. Ibid,

J. S. Schacter, Romer v. Evans and Democracy's Domain, Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.50, p.363, 1997.

O. C. Romer, , p.633

. Ibid, , vol.633

J. Leo, Applicants based their complaints on the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process-protection of liberty and privacy interests-and Equal Protection Clauses. 1454 "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, Applicants argued the law criminalizing sodomy was unconstitutional. The crime was described as a ''deviate sexual intercourse, 2003.

K. Thomas, The Eclipse of Reason: A Rhetorical Reading of Bowers v. Hardwick, Symposium on Sexual Orientation and the Law, vol.79, pp.1805-1832, 1993.

T. Grey, Bowers v. Hardwick Diminished, vol.68, 1997.

T. B. Stoddard, Bowers v. Hardwick: Precedent by Personal Predilection, The University of Chicago Law Review, vol.54, issue.2, pp.648-656, 1987.

, Rawls had emphasized the centrality of mutual respect within a polity, "to render "mutual aid" in setting the conditions under which it is possible for persons with different moral and political conceptions to coexist and to live with collective results that they may not have chosen, Jane Schacter argues that the Lawrence majority, through its numerous references to respect, displays affinities to Rawlsian theory of Justice (1971) and other theorists such as Dworkin, vol.13, p.749, 1457.

L. V. Texas, at 563. education and until "secrecy, prejudice, bias, misrepresentation, and propaganda as well as sheer ignorance are replaced by inquiry and publicity, p.18, 2011.

. Sartori, Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the Twentieth Century, More on Tönnies in S. Splichal, p.244, 1989.

. See, Herbst Reading Public Opinion, How Political Leaders View the Democratic Process, pp.125-151, 1998.

J. Fishkin, The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy, pp.8-9, 1995.

A. B. Ecthr and . Ireland, , 2010.

D. Ecthr, , 2007.

. Johnston, be added, although it is a freedom of religion case litigated under Article 9, 1986.

, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v, vol.497, p.833, 1961.

J. G. Wilson, Casey was the decision that motivated Wilson's doctrinal defense of the majority opinion in 1993, Brigham Young University Law Review, vol.1993, issue.4, pp.1037-1138, 1993.

G. L. Neuman, a case regarding the transfer of a schizophrenic detainee from prison to hospital without time to stabilize. ECHR McKerr v. United Kingdom, req. n°2888395, 28 May 1998 regards the issue of « public confidence » in politce forces after accusations of degrading treatment, European Journal of International Law, vol.68294, issue.46295, pp.101-123, 1753.

E. Cour, . Gr, . Ch, . Vallianatos-c, and . Grèce, , 2013.

E. Cour, . Oliari, and . Italie, , p.17, 2015.

R. M. Cichowski-;-e, D. G. Hafner-burton, Y. Victor, and . Lupu, La recherche politique sur les cours internationales, les participants et leur efficacité, ainsi que les nombreuses dimensions de leur fonctionnement interne et de leurs résultats a été très dynamique et continue à se développer de nos jours, Sur les usages stratégiques des cours internationales dans des buts politiques, vol.39, pp.50-75, 2006.

J. Voir-par-exemple-a.-garapon and . Allard, Les juges dans la mondialisation du droit, 2005.

D. Salas, L. T. Pouvoir, P. Fayard, ;. M. Shapiro, and ;. Shapiro, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis, On Law, Politics and Judicialization, pp.149-183, 1981.

, At global level, see for example A-M Slaughter, A New World Order, vol.84, issue.2, 2005.

S. See, E. J. Mclaughlin-mitchell, ;. Powell, G. Jacobson, ;. E. Benarieh-ruffer et al., Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes.The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, Pour une étude comparative des cours constitutionnelles, voir R. Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy. The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, vol.25, pp.61-88, 2003.

S. Bénétulière, La démocratie d'opinion, 2008.

M. Horwitz, The Warren Court in the Pursuit of justice, p.82, 1998.

A. Cox and ;. T. Clark, Issue 1 (1978-1979) p. 1. Dès lors, la Cour suprême est perçue comme protectrice de la liberté et un arbitre pour la société, Northwestern University Law Review, vol.73, p.1, 1959.

, Pour des références, voir ci-dessus, vol.6

G. Kalinowski, Y a t'il une logique juridique, Logique et analyse, vol.5, p.4, 1788.

G. Wetlaufer, Rhetoric and Its Denial in Legal Discourse, Virginia Law Review, vol.76, p.1554, 1990.

O. C. Perelman, , p.7

J. Esser, Grundsatz und Norm in der richterlichen Fortbildung des Privatrechts: Rechtsvergleichende Beiträge zur Rechtsquellen-und Interpretationslehre, 1956.

, après beaucoup de résistance par les juristes. Cependant, les recherches sur le rôle de l'opinion publique dans les décisions de justice sont encore incomplètes

, celle-ci s'avère toutefois insuffisante pour retranscrire la réalité de la motivation mais aussi rendre compte de son extrême complexité. Derrière l'exposé des motifs que l'on peut lire, il y a en effet toute la question des ressorts psychologique, sociologique, culturel, politique, éthique, etc. du raisonnement du juge, « Si l'analyse textuelle des décisions de la juridiction européenne constitue le point de départ de notre recherche, p.25

O. C. Wetlaufer, , p.1548

. E. Jouannet, il existe en effet une difference entre le langage intérieur des juges et leur raisonnement et motivation. E Jouannet, La motivation des décisions des juridictions internationales, p.11, 2008.

O. C. Wetlaufer, , p.1595

, Van den Eynde s'est penchée sur le rôle des contributions des tierces interventions dans la protection des droits de la Cour Européenne, la Cour suprême, et la Cour suprême d'Afrique du Sud, en tant que participants dans la procédure. L. Van den Eynde, Interpreting Rights Collectively, Comparative Arguments in Public Interest Litigants' Briefs on Fundamental Rights Issues, 2015.

, Voir par exemple Ran Hirschl, op

A. S. Sweet, The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance, Living Reviews in European Governance, vol.5, 2010.

A. Voir-par-exemple, . Stone, T. L. Sweet, and . Brunell, Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, Journal of Law and Courts, vol.1, issue.1, pp.61-88, 2013.

E. Voeten, ;. E. Voeten, and ;. Cichowski, Une thèse de doctorat a été publiée, qui compare dans les cas de la Suprême Cour Israélienne et la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, The European Court and Civil Society, vol.14, pp.387-406, 2007.

, Cependant, cette thèse n'incluait pas l'opinion publique dans sa perspective. Voir S. Dothan, Reputation and Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts, 2014.

. Pour-illustrer-le-degré-d'engagement-que-présuppose-la-citoyenneté-américaine, . Concernant-un-suivi-de-la-politique-locale, and . Fédérale, représentants municipaux (dont six au conseil municipal) et 3 au conseil des écoles, James Fishkin a dressé une liste du nombreuses d'élus qu'un citoyen Texan est invité à élire: 5 représentants pour le Congrès fédéral, 14 députés dans les instances représentatives du Texas, 13 représentants pour le compté, vol.7, pp.8-9, 1995.

, Selon la definition du dictionnaire politique Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, p.422, 2009.

O. C. Amar, , p.83

R. N. Dahl-;-g and . Rosenberg, The Road Taken: Robert A. Dahl's Decision-Making in A Democracy: The Supreme Court as A National Policy-Maker, Journal Public Law, vol.6, 1957.

, Emory Law Journal, vol.613, 2001.

, Voir en particulier Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.

O. C. Horwitz, , vol.9, p.29

O. Rosenberg, . G. Cit.-;-r, and . Mccloskey, The American Supreme Court, p.619, 1960.

, « Les juristes compétents en droit constitutionnel, dont les juges savants eux-mêmes, ne sont pas du même avis

B. J. Roesch, Crowd Control: The Majoritarian Court and the Reflection of Public Opinion in Doctrine, Michigan State Law Review, vol.39, p.775, 2005.

W. Sadurski and ;. Primus, Public Consensus as Constitutional Authority, Conventional Morality and Judicial Standards, vol.73, p.1207, 1987.

P. B. Voir-en and . Friedman, The Will of the People, 2009.

N. Persily and J. Citrin, Public opinion and Constitutional Controversy, 2008.

T. Marshall, This first study was updated Twenty years later: T. Marschall, Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court, 1989.

V. Voir-par-exemple, ;. Hoekstra, P. Casillas, P. Enns, and . Wohlfart, How Public Opinion Constrains the, Public Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions, vol.55, pp.74-88, 2003.

E. M. Voir-par and . Klarman, The Supreme Court Is Most Powerful When It Follows Public Opinion, The New York Times, 2015.

, Voir également K, 2018.

K. Linos, ;. E. Twist, and . Voeten, How the Supreme Court Responds to Public Opinion, Controversial Supreme Court decisions change public opinion-in part because the media mostly report on them uncritically, 2013.

, On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority, Amsterdam Center for International Law University of Amsterdam Acil Research Paper No 2012-10. (Ils affirment que le consentement des États ne peut suffire à légitimer les cours internationales. Ils procèdent dès lors à une analyse multifonctionelle des cours internationales, rendant justice à leurs fonctions diverses. Les cours internationales stabilisent en effet les normes internationales, confirment la validité des normes juridiques, et légitimisent les autres institutions.) Voir également G. Ulfstein, Parmi les publications récentes sur la légitimité des cours internationales, voir par exemple A. von Bogdandy, I. Venzke, 2014.

, PluriCourts Research Paper, pp.14-27

, Accessible sur la base de donnée académique, pp.2014-2028

A. Bogdandy and I. Venzke, « En tant qu'acteurs autonomes exercant une autorité publique-ce qui est notre these principale-leurs actions requièrent une veritable méthode de justification qui soit en accord avec les principes de base de la théorie démocratique » ibid., p.8, notre traduction), Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts' Public Authority and Its Democratic Justification, vol.23, p.72, 2012.

N. Grossman, Sex on the Bench, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.12, issue.2, 2012.

A. Buchanan and R. O. Keohane, The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions, Ils suggèrent que des standards mondiaux de la légitimité publique pourraient aider les citoyens à distinguer les institutions légitimes des non légitimes), vol.20, p.409, 2006.

, Pour un bref historique de la théorie de l'opinion publique, voir Dominique Reynié, vol.3, pp.21-27, 2001.

. , Age d'Or du consentement du peuple, la sélection au suffrage universel était plus même de refléter le choix populaire que par la pratique du tirage au sort, une pratique antique. B. Manin, The Principles of Representative Government, p.85, 1995.

S. Herbst, Numbered Voices, How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American Politics, p.172, 1993.

G. Vedel, Dans le même esprit, voir le politologue américain V.O. Key qui définit l'opinion publique en 1961 comme « ces opinions de personnes privées que les gouvernements pensent prudent d'écouter, Le rôle de l'opinion en démocratie, vol.53, p.7, 1961.

, Afin que cela puisse se produire, les Etats Parties à la Conventions ont dû consentir à réformer la Convention plusieurs fois, 1918.

O. C. Chemerinsky, , p.812

E. Cour, . Streletz, and . Kessler-and-krenz-c/-allemagne, , vol.87, 2001.

. Cour-edh-soering-c/-royaume-uni, §88 (souligné par nous) Sometimes the burden of proof will be reversed and lay on the defending state (Cour EDH, Tomasi c/ France, req. n° 12850/87, 27 août 1992, A.241 A, §115). Ainsi, la Cour européenne est soumise à plus de contraintes que la Cour suprême, qui a protégé des droits non spécifiquement protégés par la Constitution (par exemple, le droit au respect de la vie privée dans Griswold v, vol.479, 1965.

, Elle crée également une Cour permanente unique rassemblant l'ancienne Commission et l'ancienne Cour et réformant ses compétences. Le Protocole 14, signé le 13 mai 2004 et entré en vigueur en juin 2010 réforme la Cour dans le but de rendre son travail plus efficace. Elle crée un système de filtrage des requêtes par une formation à juge unique et une nouvelle formation de trois juges, compétente pour traiter commençait à annuler des législations protectrices des droits des travailleurs, ou à empiéter sur le droit de propriété et le droit des contrats. Il affirme que cette jurisprudence a servi à développer l'exercice de la fonction judiciaire au XIXème siècle, mais également la doctrine de la suprématie judiciaire, c'est-àdire que "ses interprétations de la Constitution sont suprêmes par rapport à celles des autres acteurs gouvernementaux, une prétention que Justice Marshall n'avait pas exprimée dans sa décision Marbury, Constitution des États-Unis, approuvée le 17 septembre 1787. Les amendements du Bill of Rights amendement ont été signés le 25 Septembre, 1989, et officiellement intégrés à la Constitution le 15 décembre 1989. Les textes officiels sont accessibles sur le site suivant, p.409, 1918.

K. E. Whittington, Political Foundation of Judicial Supremacy, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership, p.p. xi, 2009.

. Black's-law, S. Dictionary, M. N. Paul, and T. Reuters, , p.1669, 2009.

. Ibid,

E. Cour, . Gr, . Ch, E. Cour, . Zielinski et al., Parti Communiste Unifié et autres c/ Turquie, req. N°. 19392/92, 30 janvier, 1998.

F. Sudre, Droit international, p.183
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02088943

E. Cour, . Gr, and . Ch, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, op. cit., at § §29-30

. Sudre, Droit international, p.183
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02088943

E. Barnett, La règle des pouvoirs énumérés, de l'Article I Section 8 de la Constitution limite en principe les pouvoirs du Congrès aux pouvoirs expressément confiés par la Constitution américaine, Il est bon de rappeler que la doctrine de la suprématie judiciaire est intrinsèquement liée à la séparation des pouvoirs et au fédéralisme. Les pouvoirs sont confiés à la fédération par les États, et non pas l'inverse, vol.5, p.85, 2010.

D. Szymczak, Applicabilité directe des dispositions de la Convention et de ses protocoles, p.16, 2007.

E. Cour, . Gr, P. Ch, and . Communiste, Unifié de Turquie et autres c/ Turquie, op. cit. 1938 Some countries such as Austria, give the Convention Constitutional rank. Some such as France give it a legal rank superior to statutory law. Some give it a legal value equal to statutory law

F. Matscher, 40 ans d'activités de la Cour EDH, p.304, 1997.

O. C. Schamahneche, C'est une pratique courante de la Cour suprême. Par exemple, dans l'affaire case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), elle examinait la conformité de la legislation en question non à la lumière d'une disposition constitutionnelle spécifique, mais par rapport à un précédent sur le droit à l'avortement, p.445, 1973.

, Son article n'est pas consacré aux arrêts de la Cour suprême ou aux usages rhétoriques et argumentatifs généralement. Cependant, ses observations peuvent être utiles à cette these. Wetlaufer, op. cit. Chemerinsky se concentre sur la stratégie de la Cour suprême pour assurer l'acceptabilité de ses décisions, plutôt que sur une analyse du langage de ses décisions, Wetlaufer se concentre sur le langage juridique en tant que rhétorique, mais il l'aborde en comparant le langage juridique à d'autres types de littérature Classique, vol.97, pp.1371-1419, 1995.

G. Schubert-;-r.-johnston, ;. C. Neal-tate, ;. D. Katz, M. J. Bommarito, I. I. et al., Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective, Pour cette raison, de nombreuses études politiques se sont penchées sur le style littéraire de chacun des Justice, et ont tenté de prédire les futurs résultats en se basant sur leur idéologie et leur philosophie judiciaire depuis les année, vol.75, p.1959, 1946.

O. C. Wald, Le ton de Justice Scalia est connu pour être des plus sarcastiques. Aussi, pour Wetlaufer, parfois au lieu de la déduction et le syllogisme et les arguments hautement rationnels, les juges "écrivent avec une passion qui ressemble plus à de la rhétorique politique qu'à ce que je décris comme la rhétorique juridique, p.1563

O. C. Wald, , p.1415

O. C. Wetlaufer, , pp.1562-1565

. Ibid, Le jugement définitif a été rendu par la Grande Chambre en 2011 : Cour EDH, Gr. Ch., Lautsi c/ Italie, req, p.1418, 2009.

W. Next, que la recherche n'a exclu aucune période, et incluait toute la jurisprudence depuis la fondation de la Cour suprême jusqu'aujourd'hui (la base de données, 1976.

, également gardé de côté dans une base de données séparée des décisions auxquelles Marshall fait référence dans ses deux études datant de, 1989.

, Pour la sélection des affaires sur l'homosexualité, l'objectif consistait dans l'obtention d'un petit nombre d'affaires, afin de pouvoir procéder à une analyse plus approfondie du raisonnement et de la doctrine 1986. En effet, l'analyse des affaires individuelles permet une analyse plus approfondie des divers éléments du raisonnement judiciaire

, Puisque ces arrêts concernent de nombreux aspects des conséquences que peut avoir l'homosexualité sur la vie pratique d'une personne, dont la vie privée, le droit du travail, nombreuses études de panel qui testent l'opinion concurrente de Justice Marshall dans Furman dans la vie réelle depuis 1976, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol.32, issue.4, pp.307-327, 2004.

J. Cochran, M. Chamlin, and ;. Jones, Pour une remise de cause de l'usage des sondages d'opinion pour évaluer le soutien du public pour la peine de mort, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol.33, issue.6, pp.32-50, 1994.

, Notons que les dispositions interdisant la discrimination ne peuvent être utilisées de la même manière en droit constitutionnel américain et en droit conventionnel européen Les requêtes européennes sont contraintes par l'obligation de fonder leurs prétentions sur un droit protégé par la convention et de le combiner avec l'Article 14

R. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2013.

, Les tiers intervenants entre participants, experts et lobbys Chapitre Trois : Opinion publique et démocratie : La liberté d'expression comme outil indispensable à l

, Fondamentaux de la protection de la liberté d'expression : perspective comparée

. Démocratie,

, Chapitre Quatre : L'opinion publique comme force modernisatrice des droits

, il publiait une seconde étude actualisant ses données, et appliquées à la période de la Cour Rehnquist. Depuis 1989, de nombreuses études concernant le lien entre opinion publique et jurisprudence de la Cour suprême ont été publiées dans le domaine des sciences politiques. , T. Marshall, Public Opinion and the Supreme Court, 1989.

G. Voir-en-particulier-l'étude-de and . Wilson, Crowd Control: The Majoritarian Court and the Reflection of Public Opinion in Doctrine, Brigham Young University Law Review, vol.1993, issue.4, pp.1037-1138, 1993.

B. Çali, A. Koch, and N. Bruch, The Legitimacy of The European Court of Human Rights: The View From the Ground, UCL Working Papers, 2011.

S. Herbst, Numbered Voices, How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American Politics, p.172, 1993.

, no way to identify the genuine potential of the general population and its capacity to act as "the public" as long as citizens have limited access to education and until "secrecy, prejudice, bias, misrepresentation, and propaganda as well as sheer ignorance are replaced by inquiry and publicity, p.18, 2011.

. Sartori, Pour plus d'information sur le théoricien allemand Ferdinand Tönnies, voir S. Splichal, Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the Twentieth Century, Rowman & Littlefield (1999), chapitre 2. Voir également J. Habermas, "Structural Transformation, J. Habermas, p.244, 1989.

. See, Herbst Reading Public Opinion, How Political Leaders View the Democratic Process, pp.125-151, 1998.

J. Fishkin, The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy, pp.8-9, 1995.

, Under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, the Supreme Court gained a reputation of being "progressive". Many of its most famous decisions significantly advanced constitutional rights protection based on a progressive notion of rights. See A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch

, Sous la direction du Chief Justice Rehnquist, la Cour suprême s'est faite une reputation de cour "conservatrice, Judicature, vol.77, 1993.

L. Par-exemple and . Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism And Judicial Review, 2004.

C. L. Voir and . Eisgruber, Voir également la notion de "représentation descriptive" développée par Annabelle Lever. A. Lever, Constitutional Self-Government, vol.7, p.810, 2009.

, Annabelle Lever montre que la justification démocratique est une manière pour les juges de faire montre de leur responsabilité démocratique. Lever, op

J. Driver, The Consensus Constitution, Texas Law Review, vol.89, issue.4, p.758, 2011.

, CTS No. 194 signed in Strasbourg on 13 May 2004 entering into force on 1st of, 2010.

, The Court's Priority Policy, European Court of Human Rights

L. Greenhouse, D'ordinaire, la Cour suprême annonce toutes ses décisions annuelles le même jour. Cependant, elle a occasionnellement aménagé ses annonces pour certaines décisions spécifiques, Yale Law Journal, vol.105, p.1550, 1996.

R. Stras, Unis est maintenant retransmise à la télévision. Cependant, cette transparence s'est faite au prix d'une polarisation accrue de la sélection, et peut-être même de la fonction judiciaire elle-même. The hearing of candidates by the Senate in the United States is now broadcasted on television, L'audience des candidats à la fonction judiciaire fédérale par le Sénat des États, vol.86, p.1065, 2008.

, Seuls les curriculum vitae des candidats et les rapports du Comité sur l'élection des juges à la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme de l'Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe sont disponibles sur le site de

, mettre en relation l'évolution du rôle des références à l'opinion publique dans les décisions de justices avec l'évolution de l'interprétation de leurs droits, de l'époque où l'homosexualité était encore un délit à la consécration d'un droit à un statut légal des 2011 Voir par exemple A. Orr Larsen, L'étude des arrêts concernant les droits des personnes et des couples homosexuels visait à, vol.100, p.1757, 2014.

C. Salmon, I. T. Glasser-politics-of-polling, C. Glasser, and . Salmon, referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes famous expression introduced in Abrams v, vol.616, p.630, 1919.

, Voir les arrêts concernant les obligations éthiques de la presse, par exemple Cour EDH, Couderc et Hachette Filipacchi Associés c/ France, vol.10, pp.10-2007

, usage non critique des sondages et des enquêtes d'opinions devraient être découragé

E. Cour and . Kozak-c/-pologne, , vol.13102, p.98, 2010.

G. Letsas, The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy (hereinafter "Living Instrument, Copie digitale disponible, pp.12-13, 2012.

S. Herbst, approfondie de la manière dont la Cour européenne fait usage des données statistiques 2030. Par ailleurs, Numbered Voices, How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American Politics, p.166, 1993.

E. Cour and . Kozak-c/-pologne, , vol.13102, p.98, 2010.

, Bien que Letsas affirme que la Cour européenne recherche le consensus et les valeurs communes aux Etats contractants, elle élève également le standard de protection des droits au-dessus des pratiques nationales. Letsas, p.12

C. Salmon and . Glasser, (accès en ligne le 16 mai 2018) Pour un traitement académique du soutien populaire pour la Cour supreme, voir see Or Bassok, Des sondages réguliers font le suivi du soutien public pour la Cour suprême. Voir par exemple les tendances de l'opinion sur le travail général de la Cour suprême sur le site internet de Gallup, vol.23, p.444, 2016.

D. Le-nombre, arrêts contenant de telles mentions statistiques de l'opinion publique sélectionnés pour cette these était trop réduit pour justifier une critique générale

, Letsas fonde sa lecture morale de la Convention sur la théorie morale de Dworkin, qui elle-même ne rejette pas une interprétation fondée sur le consensus social et l'opinion publique. See G. Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, 2008.

G. Letsas, The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy (hereinafter "Living Instrument, pp.12-13, 2012.

M. Dembour, J'ai défendu ma lecture morale de la Convention contre les accusations d'activisme judiciaire, sur le fondement que cela fait partie des compétences juridiques de la Cour :les États contractants ont donné à la Cour la compétence de protéger les droits quels qu'ils soient dont les gens sont titulaires en fait, et non les droits de l'homme que les autorités nationales ou l'opinion publique pensent qu'ils possèdent. » Ibid, Sur les différentes philosophies des droits de l'homme, vol.32, p.13, 2010.

E. Cour and A. B. ,

E. Cour, . Dickson-c/-royaume, and . Uni, , 2007.

. Johnston, . Le-mariage, and . Le-refus-d, autorisé le divorce sur le fondement de croyances religieuses, pourrait être ajouté, bien qu'il ait été fondé sur l'Article 9 de la Convention, protégeant la liberté de conscience et de religion, Voir Cour EDH, 1986.

, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v, vol.497, p.833, 1961.

C. and ;. G. Wilson, opinion qui a motivé la rédaction par Wilson d'une defense doctrinale de l'opinion de la majorité de la êmeeme en 1993, Brigham Young University Law Review, vol.1993, issue.4, pp.1037-1138, 1993.

, Par exemple, des affaires à caractère pénal telles Cour EDH Kandzhov c. Bulgarie, req. n° 68294/01, 6 novembre 2008 fondées sur l'Article 3 et 6 regardent le transfer d'un détenue schisophrène de la prison à l'hopital sans possibilité de stabilisation. Cour EDH McKerr c/ Royaume Uni, req. n°2888395, 28 Mai 1998 aborde la question de la "confiance du public" dans les forces de police après allegation de mauvais traitement, 2011.

G. L. Neuman, Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, European Journal of International Law, vol.19, issue.1, pp.101-123, 2008.

F. Cross, Political Science and the New Legal Realism : A Case of Unfortunate Interdisciplinary Ignorance, Northwestern University Law Review, vol.92, pp.251-326, 1997.

, Monographs, Collective Publications and and Academic Articles

D. References and B. Encyclopedia,

, Monographs, Collective Publications and and Academic Articles 2047

, This list of monographs, publications and articles is selective. It purposefully does not include all materials used in the research and redaction of this dissertation. The author preferred to concentrate on the materials that were most used during there during the thinking conducive and drafting of the dissertation

S. S. Abrahamson, F. Michael, and J. , All the World's a Courtroom : Judging in the New Millenium, Hofstra Law Review, vol.26, issue.2, pp.273-292, 1997.

B. A. Ackerman, The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution, Yale Law Journal, vol.93, issue.6, pp.1013-1072, 1983.

B. A. Ackerman, The Living Constitution, Harvard Law Review, vol.120, issue.7, 1737.

J. R. Acker, Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases and Briefs: The Actual and Potential Contribution of Social Scientists as Amici Curiae, Law and Human Behavior, vol.14, issue.1, pp.25-42, 1990.

P. Aldrin, L'invention de l'opinion publique européenne. Genèse intellectuelle et politique de l'Eurobaromètre (1950-1973), Politix, vol.89, issue.1, pp.79-101, 2010.

A. Alemanno, How Transparent is Transparent Enough? Balancing Access to Information Against Privacy in European Judicial Selection, Bobek, Michal, Selecting Europe's Judges, pp.203-221, 2015.

N. Aletras, D. Tsarapatsanis, . Preo?iuc-pietro, . Daniel, and V. Lampos, Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective, PeerJ Computer Science, vol.2, p.93, 2016.

L. Alexander and F. Schauer, On extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation, Harvard Law Review, vol.110, issue.7, pp.1359-1387, 1997.

L. Alexander and L. Solum, Book Review. Popular? Constitutionalism, Harvard Law Review, vol.118, pp.1594-1640, 2005.

, on the ground that it is more practical to find the sources if classified in alphabetical order than if it is classified according to the type of support. Moreover, many cited articles' length was such, that they could easily been published as a book themselves. The distinction between books and article did not, I voluntarily did not distinguish between books and articles

R. Alexy, Balancing, constitutional review, and representation, International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.3, issue.4, pp.572-581, 2005.

R. Alexy, Discourse Theory and Fundamental Rights

, Arguing Fundamental Rights, pp.15-30, 2006.

R. Alexy, Discourse Theory and Human Rights, Ratio Juris, vol.9, issue.3, pp.209-235, 1996.

R. P. Alford, misusing international sources to interpret the constitution, American Journal International Law, vol.98, pp.57-69, 2004.

K. Alter, Private Litigants and the New International Courts, Comparative Political Studies, vol.39, issue.1, pp.22-49, 2006.

A. R. Amar, The Bill of Rights, p.412, 1998.

A. R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, The Yale Law Journal, vol.101, pp.1193-1284, 1992.

E. Andersen and . Ann, Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation, vol.312, p.p, 2005.

E. Angell, The Amicus Curiae American Development of English Institutions, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.16, issue.4, pp.1017-1044, 1967.

V. Armstrong and C. A. Johnson, Certiorari Decision Making by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?, Polity, vol.15, pp.141-150, 1982.

H. Ascencio and L. &. , amicus curiae devant les juridictions internationales, Revue générale de droit international public, vol.105, pp.897-930, 2001.

V. Baird, Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda, vol.240, p.p, 2007.

S. Banner, The Myth of the Neutral Amicus: American Courts and their Friends, Constitutional Commentary, vol.20, pp.111-130, 2003.

A. Bardes and R. W. Oldendick, Public Opinion: Measuring the American Mind, vol.392, p.p, 2012.

O. Bassok, The Supreme Court at the Bar of Public Opinion Polls, Constellations, vol.23, issue.4, pp.573-584, 2016.

E. Bates, The Evolution of the Convention of Human rights: From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights, vol.608, p.p, 2010.

R. A. Barnett, An Originalism for Nonoriginalists, Loyola Law Review

B. Lain and C. , Upside-Down Judicial Review, Georgetown Law Journal, vol.101, pp.113-183, 2007.

B. Lain and C. , The Doctrinal Side of Majority Will, Michigan State Law Review, vol.2010, p.775, 2010.

G. Beck, The Mythology of Human Rights, Ratio Juris, vol.21, issue.3, pp.312-347, 2008.

S. Behuniak-long, Friendly Fire, Amici Curiae and Webster v, Reproductive Health Services, vol.74, issue.5, pp.261-270, 1991.

J. Bell, Restraining the Heartless: Racist Speech and Minority Rights, Indiana Law Journal, vol.84, issue.3, pp.963-979, 2009.

R. Bellamy, The Democratic Qualities of Courts: A Critical Analysis of Three Arguments, Representation, vol.49, issue.3, pp.333-346, 2013.

B. Ruffer and G. , Courts Across Borders: The Implications of Judicial Agency for Human Rights and Democracy, Human Rights Quarterly, issue.25, pp.74-92, 2003.

S. Bénétullière and L. Démocratie, , vol.779, 2008.

S. Benhabib, Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy, Constellations, vol.1, issue.1, pp.26-52, 1994.

E. Benvenisti, Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards, Journal of International Law and Politics, vol.31, pp.843-854, 1999.

J. M. Berry and C. Wilcox, The interest group society, vol.242, p.p, 2008.

A. Bickel, The Supreme Court and The Idea of Progress, vol.210, 1978.

R. C. Binkley, The Concept of Public Opinion in the Social Sciences, Social Forces, vol.6, pp.389-396, 1928.

D. Black, On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making, Journal of Political Economy, vol.56, issue.1, pp.23-34, 1948.

C. Blanc-fily, Les valeurs dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Essai critique sur l'interprétation axiologique du juge européen, vol.599, p.p, 2014.

J. Blau and A. Moncada, Justice in the United States : Human Rights and the US Constitution, vol.240, 2006.

S. Bloch, . Krattenmaker, and . Thomas, Inside the Supreme Court: The Institution and Its Procedures, vol.1192, 2007.

L. Blondiaux, La Fabrique de l'opinion, vol.601, 1998.

L. Blondiaux, Ce Que les Sondages Font à l'Opinion Publique, Politix, vol.10, issue.37, 1997.

B. Erik and B. , Overcoming NGO Accountability Concerns in International Governance, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol.31, issue.1, pp.139-206, 2005.

B. Daniel, The Concept of Legitimacy in International Law, pp.309-317, 2008.

R. M. Bohm, L. Clark, L. J. Aveni, and A. F. , Knowledge and death penalty opinion: A test of the Marshall hypotheses, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquincy, vol.28, issue.3, pp.360-387, 1991.

R. M. Bohm and B. L. Vogel, More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty opinions, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol.32, issue.4, pp.307-327, 2004.

J. Bohman, On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority, Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, Von Bogdandy, Armin, Venzke, Inze, pp.2012-2022

V. Bogdandy, . Armin, . Venzke, and . Inze, Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts' Public Authority and Its Democratic Justification, vol.23, pp.7-11, 2012.

V. Bogdandy, . Armin, . Venzke, and . Inze, International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, International Judicial Lawmaking, pp.472-509, 2012.

B. Jacco, Balancing, the Global and the Local: Judicial Balancing as a Problematic Topic in Comparative (Constitutional) Law, TICOM Working Paper on Comparative and Transnational Law, vol.31, issue.2, p.33, 2008.

C. E. Borgmann, Appellate Review of Social Facts in Constitutional Rights Cases, California Law Review, vol.101, issue.5, pp.1185-1258, 2013.

T. A. Börzel, Participation Through Law Enforcement : The Case of the European Union, Comparative Political Studies, vol.39, issue.1, pp.128-152, 2006.

B. Steffenmeier, J. , M. Christenson, D. P. Hitt, and P. Matthew, Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making, American Political Science Review, vol.107, issue.3, pp.446-460, 2013.

S. Breyer, The Court and the World, American Law and the New Global Realities, vol.382, p.p, 2015.

J. A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law, Columbia Journal of European Law, vol.11, pp.113-150, 2004.

J. A. Brauch, The Dangerous Search for an Elusive Consensus: What the Supreme Court Should Learn from the European Court of Human Rights, Howard Law Journal, vol.52, issue.2, pp.277-318, 2008.

P. Braud and S. Politique, , vol.710

P. Brunet, To Have and Have Not : de la difficulté contre-majoritaire et des moyens d'en sortir, Desplats et J.-M. Denquin (dir.), La démocratie: du crépuscule à l'aube, Actes du colloque, 2013.

P. Brunet, Argument sociologique et théories de l'interprétation: beaucoup d'interprétation, très peu de sociologie, L'argument sociologique en droit. Pluriel et singularité, pp.101-116, 2015.

J. Bryce, Modern Democracies, Part I, vol.504, 1921.

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Liberty Fund, vol.1755, 1914.

A. Buchanan, R. Keohane, and O. , The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions, Ethics & International Affairs, vol.20, issue.4, p.405, 2006.

A. Buchanan, Human rights and the legitimacy of the international order, Legal Theory, vol.14, issue.1, pp.39-70, 2008.

A. Buchanan, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and the Use of Force, p.332, 2010.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Entre l'utilisation et l'instrumentalisation du droit international
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01743486

. Laghmani, Le droit international à la croisée des chemins. Force du droit et droit de la force, pp.233-269, 2004.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Réflexions comparées sur les processus de sélection et de nomination des membres des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l'homme, vol.6, p.4, 2014.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, De l'internationalisation du dialogue des juges. Missive doctrinale à l'attention de Bruno Genevois, pp.95-130, 2009.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01583470

L. Burgorgue-larsen, . Le-concept-de-liberté-publique, and . De, L'influence du droit européen sur les catégories du droit public, pp.389-407, 2010.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Interpreting the European Convention: What Can the African Human Rights System Learn From the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights on the Interpretation of the European Convention, Les interventions éclairées devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, ou le rôle stratégique des amici curiae, vol.5, pp.90-124, 2011.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (janvier-juin 2012), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1726, 2012.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, 2012.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Le jeu ambigu du consensus européen dans la détermination de la marge d'appréciation: La vision critique de Françoise Tulkens, p.1744352, 2012.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (Janvier-juin 2013), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1794, 2013.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (juillet-décembre 2013), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, 2014.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Nothing is perfect'-Libres propos sur la méthodologie interprétative de la Cour européenne, L'homme et le droit Mélanges en l'honneur au professeur Jean-François Flauss, pp.129-144, 2014.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme l'homme, (janvier-juillet 2014), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1763

B. Larsen and L. , Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (août-décembre 2014), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.150, 2015.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (janvier-juillet 2015), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1732, 2015.

B. Larsen and L. , Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (août-décembre 2015), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, 2016.

B. Larsen and L. , Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (janvier-juillet 216), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1738, 2016.

B. Larsen and L. , Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (août-décembre 2016), Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.157, 2017.

L. Burgorgue-larsen, Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (janvier-juillet 2017) », Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.1768

B. Larsen and L. , Actualité de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme (août-décembre 2017) Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif, p.150

N. Bürli, Amicus Curiae As A Means To Reinforce The Legitimacy Of The Europeanc Court of Human Rights, The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents. Turning Criticism into Strength, pp.135-146, 2013.

J. Caballero, Colorado River Abstention Doctrine in the Fifth Circuit: The Exceptional Circumstances of a Likely Reversal, Baylor Law Review, vol.64, issue.1, pp.277-308, 2012.

G. A. Caldeira, Commentary on Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: The Roles of Organized and Unorganized Interests, Kentucky Law Journal, vol.77, pp.531-538

G. A. Caldeira, Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court, Journal Law, Economics & Organization, vol.15, pp.549-72, 1999.

G. A. Caldeira, Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the, The American Political Science Review, vol.82, issue.4, pp.1109-1127, 1988.

. Çali, . Basak, A. Koch, and N. Bruch, The Legitimacy of The European Court of Human Rights: The View From the Ground, UCL Working Papers, p.42, 2011.

Ç. Basak and A. Wyss, Authority of International Institutions: The Case for International Human Rights Treaty Bodies, vol.23, 2008.

B. Cali, Purpose Of European Human Rights Law System, European Human Rights Law Review, issue.3, pp.299-306, 2008.

C. Gwénaële, L. Paris, and L. G. , Affirmative Action dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême des États-Unis : le problème de la discrimination « positive, 1998.

C. Gwénaële, Le jury dans la culture politique américaine, La cour d'assises. Bilan d'un héritage démocratique, 2001.

G. Calvès, Colorblindness at Crossroads in Contemporary France, Race in France. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Politics of Difference, 2004.

G. Calvès, Un juge qui gouverne? La question de l'activisme judiciaire, Lacorne, Denis, Les Etats-Unis, 2006.

M. Canovan, The People, vol.176, 2005.

M. Canovan, The People, The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, pp.349-362, 2008.

P. G. Carozza, Uses and Misuses of Comparative International Human Rights. Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Notre Dame Law Review, vol.73, issue.5, pp.1217-1238, 1997.

P. Carozza and G. , I diritti umani, l' "arte" della democrazia e il "gusto per la libertà locale, La Sostenibilità della Democrazia nel XXI Secolo, 2009.

C. Casillas, . Enns, K. Peter, . Wohlfart, and C. Patrick, How Public Opinion Constrains the, American Journal of Political Science, vol.55, issue.1, pp.74-88, 2011.

E. Chemerinsky, In Defense of Judicial Review: The Perils of Popular Constitutionalism, University of Illinois Law Review, vol.2004, issue.3, pp.673-690

E. Chemerinsky, C. Law, . Principles, N. Y. Policies, and W. Kluwer, , vol.1140, 2011.

&. Chemerinsky and . Erwin, The Supreme Court of California, Judicial Opinions as Public Rhetoric, vol.97, pp.1763-1784, 2007.

E. Chemerinsky, The Rhetoric of Constitutional Law, Michigan Law Review, vol.100, pp.2008-2035, 2002.

. Childs and L. Harwood, Public Opinion, Nature, Foundations and Role, 1965.

E. Christodoulidis, R. Law, and . Politics, , vol.310, 1998.

J. Christoffersen, R. Madsen, and M. , The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics, vol.256, 2011.

R. Cichowski, Courts, Rights, and Democratic Participation, Comparative Political Studies, vol.39, issue.1, pp.50-75, 2006.

R. Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society, vol.310, 2007.

R. Cichowski, Civil Society and the European Court of Human Rights, APSA Annual Meeting Paper, 2010.

T. C. Clark, The Supreme Court as a Protector of Liberty Under the Rule of Law, Marquette Law Review, vol.43, issue.1, pp.11-19, 1959.

R. L. Claassen and S. P. Nicholson, Extreme Voices. Interest Groups and the Misrepresentation of Issue Publics, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol.77, issue.4, pp.861-87, 2013.

B. Clifford, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics, vol.242, 2012.

J. K. Cochran, . Chamlin, and B. Mitchell, Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol.33, issue.6, pp.573-584, 2005.

J. L. Cohen, Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization, Political Theory August, vol.36, issue.4, pp.578-606, 2008.

M. Cohen, Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Deliberations: Two Models of Judicial Deliberations in Courts of Last Resort, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol.62, issue.4, pp.951-1008, 2014.

M. R. Cohen, Legal Theories and Social Science, International Journal of Ethics, vol.25, issue.4, pp.469-493, 1915.

M. Cohn, Let the Sun Shine on the Supreme Court, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol.35, issue.2, pp.161-168, 2007.

P. Collins and M. , Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation, Law & Society Review, vol.38, issue.4, pp.807-832, 2004.

P. Collins and M. , Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision-Making, vol.248, p.p, 2008.

P. Collins, Interest Groups and their influence on Judicial Policy, New Directions in Judicial Politics, pp.221-237, 2012.

P. Collins, P. Corley, and J. Hamner, Me Too: An Investigation of Repetition in US Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Briefs, Judicature, vol.97, issue.5, pp.228-234, 2013.

L. Connell, The Supreme Court, Foreign Law and Constitutional Governance, Widener Law Review, vol.11, issue.59, pp.60-81, 2004.

M. Conrad, , vol.326, 2014.

P. Converse, Changing Conceptions of Public Opinion in the Political Process, The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol.51, pp.12-24, 1987.

J. Cotteret, Les avatars de la volonté générale, vol.122, 2011.

M. Cordray, M. Meriwether, and R. Cordray, The Philosophy of Certiorari: Jurisprudential Considerations in Supreme Court Case Selection, vol.82, pp.389-452, 2004.

C. Barber and C. , Tackling the Evaluation Challenge in Human Rights: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Litigation Organisations, The International Journal of Human Rights, vol.16, pp.411-435, 2012.

P. C. Corley, The Supreme Court and Opinion Content-The Influence of Parties' Briefs, Political Research Quarterly, vol.61, issue.3, pp.468-78, 2008.

A. Cox, Federalism and Individual Rights under the Burger Court, Northwestern University Law Review, vol.73, issue.1, pp.1-25, 1978.

N. Couldry, What and where is the transnationalized public sphere, pp.43-59, 2014.

R. A. Dahl, The Supreme Court as Policy Maker, Journal of Public Law, vol.6, pp.279-294, 1957.

R. Dahl and A. , A preface to Democratic Theory, Expanded Edition, Political Science, p.200, 2013.

B. Daugeron, De la volonté générale à l'opinion électorale: réflexion sur l'électorialisation de la volonté collective, Jus politicum, issue.10, p.27, 2013.

R. Davis, Lifting the Shroud: News Media Portrayal of the U.S. Supreme Court, Communications and The Law, vol.9, pp.43-59, 1987.

R. Davis, Supreme Court Nominations and the News Media, Albany Law Review, vol.57, pp.1061-1079, 1993.

A. L. Davis, The United States Supreme Court and the Uses of Social Science Data, vol.150, p.p, 1973.

O. Day and S. Connor, The Majesty of The Law: Reflections Of A Supreme Court, vol.330, p.p, 2003.

M. Dembour, Who Believes in Human Rights? Four Schools of Thought, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.32, issue.1, pp.1-20, 2010.

M. Dembour, Who Believes in Human Rights?: Reflections on the European Convention, vol.338, p.p, 2006.

K. Demetrious, Public relations, society & culture: theoretical and empirical explorations, pp.118-132, 2011.

D. Schutter and . Olivier, Formes d'action collective en justice et dialectique entre les intérêts individuels et l'intérêt collectif, 2004.

A. Dhanani and C. Connolly, Non-governmental Organizational Accountability: Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk?, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.129, issue.3, pp.613-637, 2015.

A. Dicey and . Venn, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, vol.504, p.p, 1905.

R. Dickinson, Examining Critical Perspectives on Human Rights, vol.304, 2012.

B. Dickson, Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, vol.400, 2013.
DOI : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697458.001.0001

A. Dolidze, Anglo-Saxonizing Rights: Transnational Public Interest Litigation in Europe, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
DOI : 10.5305/procannmeetasil.105.0439

J. Donnelly, The Relative Universality of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.29, issue.2, pp.281-306, 2007.

J. Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, vol.336, p.p, 2013.

S. J. Donnelly, The Languages and Uses of Rights, a biopsy of American jurisprudence in the twentieth century, vol.158, p.p, 1994.

S. Dothan, Reputation and Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts, vol.348, p.p, 2014.

. Douglas and M. Davison, The Rhetorical Uses of Marbury v. Madison, Wake Forest Law Review, vol.38, pp.375-413, 2003.

. Dourneau-josette, . Pascal, E. Lambert-abdelgawad, . Dourneau-josette, . Pascal et al., La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans la presse, Journal of Political Economy, vol.65, issue.2, pp.135-150, 1957.

K. T. Mcguire, . Vangerg, . Georg, . Yanus, and B. Alixandra, Targeting the Median Justice: A Content Analysis of Legal Arguments and Judicial Opinions, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, vol.20, 2007.

C. Draghici, The Strasbourg Court between European and Local Consensus: Anti-Democratic or Guardian of Democratic Process?, pp.11-29, 2017.

J. Driver, The Consensus Constitution, Texas Law Review, vol.89, issue.4, pp.755-832, 2011.

E. Drumeva, Systèmes Electoraux-Normes Européennes : Aspects Particuliers et études de cas, pp.38-63

R. Dworkin, . Matter, and . Principle, , vol.425, 1985.

R. Dworkin, . Law's-empire, . Cambridge, and . Mass, , vol.470, 1986.

R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, vol.371, 1978.

R. Dworkin, Hard Cases, Harvard Law Review, vol.88, issue.6, pp.1057-1109, 1975.

K. Dzehtsiarou, European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, German Law Journal, vol.12, issue.10, pp.1730-1745, 2011.

K. Dzehtsiarou and A. Greene, Legitimacy and the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Critical Perspectives from Academia and Practitioners, German Law Journal, vol.12, issue.10, pp.1707-1715, 2011.

D. Konstantin and D. K. Coffee, Legitimacy and Independence of International Tribunal: an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights, Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, vol.37, p.271, 2014.

K. Dzehtsiarou, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, vol.254, p.p, 2015.

C. L. Eisgruber, Is the Supreme Court an Educative Institution?, N.Y.U. Law Review, vol.67, pp.961-1032, 1992.

C. L. Eisgruber, Constitutional Self-Government, p.272, 2001.

J. Ely and . Hart, Democracy and Distrust, A Theory of Judicial Review, vol.280, p.p, 1981.

J. Ely and . Hart, The Apparent Inevitability of Mixed Government, Constitutional Commentary, vol.16, issue.2, pp.283-292, 1999.

L. Epstein, J. A. Segal, H. J. Spaeth, and T. G. Walker, The Supreme Court Compendium, 4 th Ed, vol.801, p.p, 2006.

E. Robert and T. , , vol.416, 2011.

R. Erickson, J. Simon, R. , and J. , The Use of Social Science Data in Supreme Court Decisions, 0200.

J. Esser and G. Und, der richterlichen Fortbildung des Privatrechts: Rechtsvergleichende Beiträge zur Rechtsquellen-und Interpretationslehre, vol.393, p.p, 1956.

C. Estlund, Speech on Matters of Public Concern: The Perils of an Emerging First Amendment Category, George Washington Law Review, vol.59, issue.1, pp.1-55, 1990.

M. Eudes and L. Pratique, Judiciaire Interne de la Cour EDH, vol.564, 2005.

F. Fabbrini, The Right to Vote for Non-Citizens in the European Multilevel System of Fundamental Rights Protection. A Case Study of Inconsistency ?, Czech Society for European and Comparative Law, 2010.

D. Farber, The Categorical Approach to Protecting Speech in American Constitutional Law, Indiana Law Journal, vol.84, issue.3, pp.917-938, 2009.

, The Federalist Papers, 2003.

D. Feldman, Public Interest Litigation and Constitutional Theory, Modern Law Review, vol.55, issue.1, pp.44-72, 1992.

H. Fenwick, Same sex unions at the Strasbourg Court in a divided Europe: driving forward reform or protecting the Court's authority via consensus analysis?, European Human Rights Law Review, vol.2016, issue.3, pp.249-272, 2016.

J. Ferejohn and P. Pasquino, Constitutional Adjudication : Lessons from Europe, Texas Law Review, vol.82, pp.1671-1704, 2003.

J. Ferejohn and P. Pasquino, Constitutional Courts as Deliberative Institutions: Toward an Institutional Theory of Constitutional Justice, pp.21-38, 2002.

R. A. Ferguson, Law and Letters in American Culture, vol.432, 1984.

S. Ferguson and . Devereaux, Researching the Public Opinion environment, vol.312, 2000.

J. Finnis, Human Rights and Common Good: Collected Essays, vol.448, 2011.

J. Fishkin, The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy, vol.256, 1995.

J. Fishkin, R. Luskin, and A. Siu, Europolis and the European public sphere: Empirical explorations of a counterfactual ideal, European Union Politics, vol.15, issue.3, pp.328-351, 2014.

O. M. Fiss, Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power, vol.196, p.p, 1996.

J. Flauss, Brèves observations sur le second renouvellement triennal de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l'Homme, pp.5-32, 2005.

J. Flauss, Les ONG devant les juridictions internationales compétentes dans le domaine de la protection des droits de l'homme, Cohen-Jonathan, Gérard et Flauss JeanFrançois, (éd.) Bruxelles : Bruylant, 2005.

K. N. Flaxman, Will It Make My Job Easier, or What's in it for Me?, Michigan Law Review First Impressions, vol.106, pp.16-18, 2007.

A. Follesdal and N. Tsereteli, The margin of appreciation in Europe and beyond, The International Journal of Human Rights, vol.20, issue.8, p.1055, 2016.

F. Andreas, The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Review: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights, Journal of Social Philosophy, vol.40, issue.4, pp.595-607, 2009.

E. Forbath and . William, The Will of the People? Pollsters, Elites, and Other Difficulties, George Washington Law Review, vol.78, pp.1191-1206, 2009.

R. Forst, The Basic Right to Justification: Toward a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights, Constellations, vol.6, issue.1, pp.35-60, 1999.

A. J. Franze, R. Anderson, and . Reeves, Justices Are Paying More Attention to Amicus Briefs, vol.2, p.p, 2014.

A. J. Franze, R. Anderson, and . Reeves, Record Breaking Term for Amicus Curiae in Supreme Court Reflects New Norm, The National Law Journal, 2015.

A. J. Franze, R. Anderson, and . Reeves, In Quiet Term, a Drop in Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court, The National Law Journal, vol.2, p.p, 2017.

N. Fraser, , vol.176, 2014.

N. Fraser, Transnationalizing the Public Sphere, pp.8-42, 2014.

B. Friedman, Dialogue and Judicial Review, Michigan Law Review, vol.91, pp.577-682, 1992.

B. Friedman, The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part One: The Road to Judicial Supremacy, NYU Law Review, vol.73, issue.2, pp.333-433, 1998.

B. Friedman, The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Four: Law's Politics, vol.148, pp.971-1064, 2000.

B. Friedman, The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Three: The Lesson of Lochner, NYU Law Review, vol.76, pp.1383-1455, 2001.

B. Friedman, Reconstruction Political Court: The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Two, Georgetown Law Journal, vol.91, pp.1-87, 2002.

B. Friedman, The Birth of an Academic Obsession: The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Five, Yale Law Journal, vol.112, pp.153-259, 2002.

B. Friedman, Politics of Judicial Review, vol.84, issue.2, pp.269-337, 2005.

B. ;. Friedman and . Giroux, The Will of the People, vol.624, 2009.

E. Fronza, Memory and Punishment: Historical Denialism, Free Speech and the Limits of Criminal Law, vol.217, p.p, 2018.

A. Garapon and J. Allard, Les juges dans la mondialisation du droit, vol.96, 2005.

A. Garapon, Les limites à l'interprétation évolutive de la Convention européenne, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.87, pp.439-456, 2011.

R. J. Garcia, A Democratic Theory of Amicus Advocacy, Florida State University Law Review, vol.35, issue.2, pp.315-358, 2008.

J. Gardner and A. , The Sociological Jurisprudence of Roscoe Pound (Part I.), Villanova Law Review, vol.7, issue.1, pp.1-26, 1961.

C. Girard, Des droits fondamentaux au fondement du droit, vol.414, 2010.

T. L. Glasser and C. T. Salmon, Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent, vol.475, p.p, 1995.

M. Glendon and R. Talk, The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, vol.236, 1993.

M. Glendon, World Made New, vol.268, 2001.

D. Gomien, D. Harris, L. John, and L. Zwaak, Law and Practice of The European Convention on Human Rights and the, vol.479, p.p, 1998.

D. Gooch and . Michael, Ideological Polarization on the Supreme Court, Trends in the Court's Institutional Environment and Across Regimes, American Politics Research, vol.43, issue.6, pp.999-1040, 1937.

P. Goodrich and L. Discourse, Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric and Legal Analysis, p.266, 1987.

L. Greenhouse, Telling the Court's Story: Justice and Journalism at the Supreme Court, Yale Law Journal, vol.105, pp.1537-1560, 1996.

C. Grewe, Le juge constitutionnel et l'interprétation européenne, F. Sudre (dir.), L'interprétation de la CEDH, pp.199-229, 1999.

N. Grossman, The Normative Legitimacy of International Courts, Temple Law Review, vol.86, pp.61-106, 2013.

N. Grossman, Sex on the Bench, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.12, issue.2, pp.647-684, 2012.

A. Gutmann, . Thompson, . Dennis, . Democracy, C. Disagreement et al., , vol.422, 1996.

G. Haarscher, Liberté d'expression, blasphème, racisme, essai d'analyse philosophique et comparée, pp.139-230, 2008.

J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, vol.305, p.p, 1989.

J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, vol.326, p.p, 1962.

J. Habermas, Further Reflexions on the Public Sphere, Craig Calhoun, Habermas And The Public Sphere, pp.423-461, 1992.

J. Habermas, B. Facts, and . Norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, vol.676, p.p, 1992.

J. Habermas, On the Internal Relation between the Rule of Law and Democracy, MrT The Inclusion Of The Other: Studies In Political Theory, vol.260, pp.253-264, 1996.

J. Habermas, Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?, Political Theory, vol.29, issue.6, pp.766-781, 2001.

E. Hafner-burton, M. Victor, D. G. Lupu, and Y. , Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field, American Journal of International Law, vol.106, issue.1, 2012.

M. Hallé, Discours politique et Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFondements et limites de la liberté d'expression politique dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Strasbourg, vol.112, p.p, 2010.

A. Hamilton and F. Papers, The Federalist Papers, vol.688, p.p, 2003.

T. Hansford and K. Johnson, The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Market for Information at the, Justice System Journal, vol.35, issue.4, 2014.

A. Harel, Rights-Based Judicial Review: A Democratic Justification, Law and Philosophy, vol.22, issue.3, 2003.

C. Harlow, R. Rawlings, P. T. Law, N. , and R. , , 1992.

O. Hathaway and . Anne, The Politics of the Confirmation Process, vol.106, pp.235-240, 1996.

M. Hauriou, , 1929.

R. Harmsen, The European Court of Human Rights as a 'Constitutional Court': Definitional Debates and the Dynamics of Reform

G. Anthony, Judges, Transition, and Human Rights, pp.33-54, 2007.

F. V. Harper and E. D. Etherington, Lobbyists Before the Court, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.101, pp.1172-73

R. Hirschl, The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol.53, issue.1, pp.125-155, 2005.

R. Hirschl and T. Juristocracy, The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, Cambridge, vol.296, 2007.

N. ;. Hubé, . Josette, . Pascal, E. Lambert-abdelgawad, . Dourneau-josette et al., L'institution judiciaire européenne sous contrainte de publicité, 1991.

. Lambert-abdelgawad, La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans la presse, pp.55-70, 2013.

E. Hartnett, Questioning Certiorari: Some Reflections Seventy-Five Years After the Judges Bill, Columbia Law Review, vol.100, pp.1643-1738, 2000.

V. Heath, Shaping Public Opinion, Encyclopedia of Public Opinion, vol.1, p.33, 2004.

D. Held, Models of Democracy, vol.352, 2006.

L. R. Helfer, Finding a Consensus on Equality: The Homosexual Age of Consent and the European Convention on Human Rights, NYU Law Review, vol.65, pp.1044-1100, 1990.

L. Henkin, Rights: American and Human, Columbia Law Review, vol.79, issue.3, pp.405-425, 1979.

L. ;. Hennebel, J. ;. Allard, and G. Haarscher, Juger les droits de l'homme, Europe et Etats-Unis face à Face, vol.233, p.p, 2008.

S. Herbst, Reading Public Opinion, How Political Leaders View the Democratic Process, 1998.

S. Herbst, Numbered Voices, How Opinion Polling Has Shaped American Politics, vol.235, 1993.

D. H. Hermann, Extending the Fundamental Right of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples: The United States Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Indiana Law Review, vol.49, pp.367-396, 2016.

H. Mayer and L. , NGO standing and Influence in Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol.36, issue.3, pp.911-946, 2011.

R. Hirschl and T. Juristocracy, The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, vol.296, p.p, 2007.

T. Hochmann, Qu'est-ce qu'un délit d'opinion?, Cahiers du droit, vol.53, issue.4, pp.793-812, 2012.

V. Hoekstra and J. , Public Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions, vol.177, 2003.

L. Hoffman, The Universality of Human Rights, Law Quarterly Review, vol.125, pp.416-448, 2009.

J. Horwitz and J. , Writing a Wrong: Improving the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Press, Ohio Norhern University Law Review, vol.40, pp.511-557

M. Horwitz, The Warren Court in the Pursuit of justice, vol.144, 1998.

P. Horwitz, Free Speech as Risk Analysis: Heuristics, Biases, and Institutions in the First Amendment, Temple Law Review, vol.76, issue.1, pp.1-68, 2003.

P. W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in The Courtroom, vol.288, 1993.

C. Huntington, Obergefell's Conservatism: Reifying Familial Fronts, Fordham Law Review, vol.84, issue.23, pp.23-31, 2015.

L. R. Jacobs and R. Y. Shapiro, Politicians Don't Plander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Political Responsiveness, 2000.

D. Jacobson, G. Ben-arieh, and G. Ruffer, Courts Across Borders: The Implications of Judicial Agency for Human Rights and Democracy, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.25, issue.1, pp.74-92, 2003.

J. C. Jeffries, . Karlan, and S. Pamelan, Civil Rights Actions. Enforcing the Constitution, Foundation Press, 2 nd, vol.1117, p.p, 2007.

P. Johnson, Homosexuality and the European Court of Human Rights, vol.272, 2013.

P. Johnson, Going to Strasbourg: An Oral History of Sexual Orientation Discrimination and the European Court of Human Rights, vol.270, p.p, 2016.

R. E. Johnston, Supreme Court Voting Behavior: A Comparison of the Warren and Burger Courts, Cases in American Politics, pp.71-110, 1976.

T. Johnson and E. Socker, Actions, Factions, and Interactions: Newsworthy Influences on Supreme Court Coverage, vol.93, pp.434-463, 2012.

R. Jones and . Andersen, Media Politicization of the United States Supreme Court, Oñati Socio-legal Series, vol.4, pp.613-630

P. R. Jones, It's Not What You Ask, It's the Way That You Ask It: Question Form and Public Opinion on the Death Penalty, The Prison Journal, vol.74, issue.1, pp.32-50, 1994.

E. Jouannet, La motivation ou le mystère de la boite noire, Ruiz Fabri, Hélène, et Sorel, Jean-Marc La motivation des décisions des juridictions internationales, 2008.

B. Joyeux, The Politics of European Human Rights Review. The Role of Public Opinion in European Court of Human Rights Decision-making, 2010.

C. Thomas and M. , A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative power of the state of the American union, Constitutional Limitations

J. Kalinowski, Y a t'il une logique juridique, Logique et analyse, vol.5, p.1959

H. Kalven, The Central Meaning of the First Amendment, Supreme Court Review, vol.1964, pp.191-221, 1964.

K. L. Karst, Belonging to America: Equal Citizenship and the Constitution, New Heaven, vol.340, p.p, 1989.

D. Katz, . Martin, . Bommarito, J. Michael, . Ii et al., A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States, PLOS, 2017.

A. Kavanagh, Participation and Judicial Review, A Reply to Jeremy Waldron, Law and Philosophy, vol.22, issue.5, 2003.

T. M. Keck, Judicial Politics in Polarized Times, vol.352, 2014.

D. Kellner, Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention, 2018.

V. O. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy, p.566, 1961.

Ü. Kilinç, La conception de la démocratie militante dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.23, pp.297-328

M. J. Klarman, Rethinking the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Revolutions, Virginia Law Review, vol.82, issue.1, 1996.

M. Klarman and J. , What's So Great About Constitutionalism?, Northwestern University Law Review, vol.93, 1998.

M. Klarman and J. , From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality, p.672, 2006.

M. Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, vol.288, 2013.

D. Klebanow and F. L. Jonas, People's Lawyers: Crusaders for Justice in American History, Routledge, 2003.

S. Kochevar, Amicus Curiae in Civil Law Jurisdictions, the Yale Law Journal, vol.122, p.1653, 2013.

J. Kohler, Judicial Interpretation of Enacted Law, Science of the Legal Method: Select Essays by Various Authors, pp.187-201, 1917.

K. Kollman, The Same-Sex Unions Revolution in Western Democracies, vol.255, 2013.

D. Kosa?, Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Procedures of the European Courts, pp.120-161, 2015.

L. Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, p.376, 2004.

J. Kratochvíl, The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol.29, issue.3, pp.324-357, 2001.

N. Krisch, The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law, London School of Economics Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, vol.11, 2007.

S. Krislov, The Amicus Curiae Brief, From Friendship to Advocacy, Yale Law Journal, vol.72, issue.4, pp.694-721

M. Kumm, Institutionalizing Socratic Contestation, European Journal of Legal Studies, vol.1, issue.2, pp.1-32, 2007.

C. Lain, The Countermajoritarian Classics (And an Upside-Down Theory of Judicial Review, 2010.

E. A. Lane and R. Black, Agenda Setting and Case Selection on the U.S. Supreme Court, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, p.25, 2017.

M. Lasser, Judicial transformations, The Rights Revolution in the Courts of Europe, vol.330, 2009.

P. Lambert, La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme à l'épreuve de critiques ? au fil du temps (En marge du cinquantième anniversaire de son installation), Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.21, pp.5-18, 2010.

K. Lemmens, S)electing Judges for Strasbourg, A (Dis)appointing Process?, Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Procedures of the European Courts, pp.95-119, 2015.

G. Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol.145, p.p, 2007.

G. Letsas, Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol.26, issue.4, pp.705-732, 2006.

G. Letsas, The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy (hereinafter "Living Instrument, 2012.

A. Lever, Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?, Perspectives on Politics, vol.7, issue.4, pp.805-822, 2009.

M. Lévinet, Théorie générale des droits et libertés fondamentales Bruxelles, Bruylant, vol.648, 2008.

M. Lévinet, « La convention européenne des droits de l'homme socle de la protrection des droits de l'homme dans le droit constitutionnel européen », Revue française de droit constitutionnel, pp.227-263, 2011.

L. Jutta, Judicial Independence: Law and Practice of Appointments to the European Court of Human Rights, Interights, vol.46, issue.4, p.p, 2003.

P. Lobba, Holocaust Denial before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an Exceptional Regime, The European Journal of International Law, vol.26, issue.1, pp.237-253, 2015.

A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, vol.424, 1913.

M. K. Lowman, The Litigating Amicus Curiae: When Does the Party Begin After the Friends Leave, vol.41, p.1243, 1991.

P. Mahoney and . Commentaire, Le tiers à l'instance devant les juridictions internationales, pp.151-161, 2005.

J. Madison, The Same Subject Continued (The Union as a Safeguard Against Faction and Insurrection), The Federalist Papers, pp.71-78, 2003.

B. Manin, The Principles of Representative Government, vol.256, 1997.

B. Manin, Principes du gouvernement représentatif, vol.319, 1995.

M. Boyce and F. , Gee Whiz, the Sky Is Falling!, Michigan Law Review First Impressions, vol.106, issue.1, 2007.

F. Matscher, 40 ans d'activités de la Cour EDH, pp.240-396, 1997.

J. Marguénaud, La Cour Européenne des droits de l'homme" 14 p

J. Marguénaud, De l'extrême relativité des "devoirs et responsabilités" des journalistes d'investigation, Recueil Dalloz, p.2506, 2007.

J. Marguénaud and «. De-grande, Chambre Perinçek c/ Suisse relatif à la liberté de contester le génocide des Arméniens : un tête-à-queue méthodologique », Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, p.132, 2016.

T. R. Marshall, Public Opinion and the Supreme Court, vol.214, 1989.

T. R. Marshall, Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court, vol.282, 2009.

T. Mauro, The Right Legislation for the Wrong Reasons, Michigan Law Review First Impressions, vol.106, pp.8-11, 2007.

J. Mayerfeld, Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Law, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, pp.49-88, 2009.

R. G. Mccloskey, The American Supreme Court, vol.368, p.p, 1960.

C. Mccrudden, Transnational Culture Wars, International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.13, issue.2, pp.434-462, 2015.

J. O. Mcginnis, . Somint, and . Ilya, Demoracy and International Human Rights Law, Notre Dame Law Review, vol.84, issue.4, pp.1739-1798, 2009.

T. Mcguire-kevin, Targeting the Median Justice: A Content Analysis of Legal Arguments and Judicial Opinions, 2009.

K. Mcguire, Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success, The Journal of Politics, vol.57, pp.187-196, 1995.

M. Mitchell, . Sarah, E. Powell, and . Justyna, Domestic Law Goes Global, Legal Traditions and International Courts. Cambridge, vol.278, 2013.

C. H. Mendes, Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy, 2013.

J. G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the ECHR, vol.362, p.p, 2001.

J. Mertus, The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.29, issue.4, pp.1036-64, 2007.

F. Michelman, Foreword: Traces of Self-Government, Harvard Law Review, vol.100, issue.4, pp.4-77, 1986.

F. Michelman, Conceptions of Democracy in American Constitutional Argument: The Case of Pornography Regulation, Tennessee Law Review, vol.56, pp.443-490, 1989.

F. Michelman, . Brennan, and P. Democracy, , vol.160, 2005.

A. Mohamed and A. , Individual and NGO Participation in Human Rights Litigation Before the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights: Lessons from the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, Journal of African Law, vol.43, issue.2, pp.201-213, 1999.

S. Mohan and . Chandra, The Amicus Curiae, Friends No More?, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, vol.2010, p.352, 2010.

N. Morawetz, Convenient Facts: Nken v. Holder, the Solicitor General, and the Presentation of Internal Government Facts, NYU Law Review, vol.88, pp.1600-1664, 2013.

J. Mouton, Les arrêts de la cour européenne des droits de l'homme comme actes de discours : contribution à la méthodologie de la fonction juridictionnelle, Mélanges offerts à Charles Chaumont : le droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes : méthodes d'analyse du droit international, pp.407-431, 1984.

A. Mowbray, The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review, vol.5, issue.1, pp.57-79, 2005.

A. Mowbray, An Examination of the Work of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Public Law, pp.507-528, 2007.

A. Mowbray, Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review, vol.15, issue.2, pp.313-341, 2015.

M. Melissa, Obergefell v. Hodges and Nonmarriage Inequality, California Law Review, vol.104, issue.5, pp.1207-1258, 2016.

A. Müller, Judicial Dialogue and Human Rights, vol.620, p.p, 2017.

K. Nash, Towards Transational Democratization?, Transnationalizing the public sphere, pp.60-78, 2014.

E. Noelle-neumann, Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent, pp.33-54, 1995.

D. R. Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: A Study of Intellectual Impact, NYU Law Review, vol.51, issue.5, pp.731-738, 1976.

O. Boyle and M. , The Future of the European Court of Human Rights, German Law Journal, vol.12, pp.1862-1877, 2011.

K. O'connor and L. Epstein, Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman's "Folklore, Law & Society Review, vol.16, issue.2, pp.311-320, 1981.

. O'-mahony, . Conor, and K. Dzehtsiarou, Evolutive Interpretation of Rights Provisions: A Comparison of the European Court of Human Rights and the US Supreme Court, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol.44, pp.309-357, 2013.

D. R. Ortiz, Creating Controversy: Essentialism and Constructivism and the Politics of Gay Identity, Virginia Law Review, vol.79, pp.1833-1857, 1993.

O. Larsen and A. , The Trouble with Amicus Facts, Virginia Law Review, vol.100, pp.1255-1312, 2014.

F. Ost, The Original Canons of Interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, pp.283-318, 1991.

R. J. Owens and D. A. Simon, Explaining the Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket, William & Mary Law Review, vol.53, pp.1219-1285

P. Pararas, L'impossible universalité des droits de l'homme, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.22, pp.3-22, 2011.

R. Parker, Here the People Rule, a constitutional populist manifesto, vol.144, 1994.

B. Pastre-belda, La Cour EDH entre promotion de la subsidiarité et protection effective des droits, Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l'Homme, vol.94, 2013.

M. S. Paulsen, Medium Rare Scrutiny, Constitutional Commment, vol.15, pp.392-402, 1998.

B. Pennell and K. Cibelli-hibben, Surveying in Multicultural and Multinational Contexts" in The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology, pp.157-177, 2016.

C. Perelman and L. Juridique, , vol.193, 1976.

M. J. Perry, The Constitution, The Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policymaking by the Judiciary, 1982.

M. Perry and J. , Protecting Human Rights in Democracy, What Role for the Courts?, Wake Forest Law Review, vol.38, pp.635-696, 2003.

N. Persily and J. Citrin, Public opinion and Constitutional Controversy, vol.376, 2008.

H. F. Pitkin, Justice: On Relating Private and Public, Political Theory, vol.9, issue.3, pp.327-352, 1981.

H. L. Pohlman, Political Thought and the American Judiciary, vol.326, 1993.

H. Porsdam and L. Speaking, Contemporary American Culture and the Law, vol.269, 1999.

R. A. Posner, P. Law, and A. Democracy, , p.416, 2005.

R. Post, The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Harvard Law Review, vol.103, issue.3, pp.601-686, 1990.

R. Post, Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in Frist Amendment Jurisprudence, California Law Review, vol.88, issue.6, p.2353, 2000.

R. Post, The Supreme Court Opinion As Institutional Practice: Dissent, Legal Scholarship, and Decisionmaking in the Taft Court, Minnesota Law Review, vol.85, pp.1267-1390, 2000.

R. Post, Foreword, Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law, Harvard Law Review, vol.117, issue.4, pp.4-112, 2003.

R. Post and R. Siegel, Popular Constitutionalism, Departementalism, and Judicial Supremacy, California Law Review, vol.92, issue.4, pp.1027-1043, 2004.

R. C. Post and R. B. Siegel, Originalism as a Political Practice: The Right's Living Constitution, Fordham Law Review, vol.75, pp.545-574, 2006.

R. Pound, The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, vol.8, issue.8, pp.489-516, 1908.

R. Primus, Double Consciousness in Constitutional Adjudication, Review of Constitutional Studies, vol.13, issue.1, pp.1-20, 2007.

R. Primus, Public Consensus as Constitutional Authority, George Washington Law Review, vol.78, issue.6, pp.1207-1231, 2009.

R. A. Primus, The American Language of Rights, p.284, 1999.

R. Rambaud, Droit international et comparé des sondages électoraux : avantages et inconvénients du modèle français, vol.1, pp.11-16, 2013.

M. M. Ramsey, The Increasingly Marginal Appreciation of the Margin-of-Appreciation Doctrine, International Materials and Domestic Rights: Reflections on Atkins and Lawrence, vol.98, pp.611-635, 2004.

R. Madsen and L. Mikael, Europe des droits de l'Homme, Enjeux juridiques et stratégies d'Etat, 2010.

R. Madsen and M. , La Cour qui venait du froid". Les droits de l'homme dans la genèse de l'Europe d'après guerre, Critique internationale, issue.1, 2005.

J. Rawls, Political liberalism, 1993.

J. Rawls, The Idea of Public Reason, Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp.93-130, 1997.

J. Raz, Rights and Politics, Indiana Law Journal, vol.71, issue.1, pp.27-44, 1995.

W. Rehg, Insight and Solidarity: A Study in The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas, vol.288, p.p, 1994.

W. H. Rehnquist, Constitutional Law and Public Opinion, Suffolk University Law Review, vol.20, pp.751-769, 1986.

A. Reichman, The Dimensions of Law: Judicial Craft, Its Public Perception, and the Role of the Scholar, California Law Review, vol.95, pp.1619-1675, 2007.

D. Reynié, La théorie de l'opinion publique a la recherche d'un nouveau souffle, vol.3, pp.21-27, 2001.

D. Riesman, Democracy and Defamation: Control of Group Libel, Colorado Law Review, vol.42, pp.727-780, 1942.
DOI : 10.2307/1117690

T. Risse, . Community, and . Europeans, , 2010.

R. Robson, Guide to the Amicus Briefs in Obergefell v. Hodges: The SameSex Marriage Cases, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, 2015.

B. J. Roesch, Crowd Control: The Majoritarian Court and the Reflection of Public Opinion in Doctrine, Sufflolk University Law Review, vol.39, pp.379-423, 2005.

P. L. Rosen, The Supreme Court and Social Science, vol.260, 1972.

G. N. Rosenberg, The Road Taken: Robert A. Dahl's Decision-Making in A Democracy: The Supreme Court as A National Policy-Maker, Emory Law Journal, vol.50, pp.613-630, 2001.

G. Rosenberg and N. , The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago, vol.534, p.p, 2008.

C. Ross, The Leaderless Revolution, How Ordinary People Will Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century, vol.272, 2011.

D. Rousseau, Une résurrection : la notion de constitution, vol.1, pp.5-22, 1990.

D. Rousseau and L. Justice-constitutionnelle-en-europe, , p.160, 1998.

D. Rousseau, La démocratie continue. Espace public et juge constitutionnel, Le Débat, vol.96, issue.4, pp.73-88, 1997.

T. W. Ruger, The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal And Political Science Approaches To Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Columbia Law Review, vol.104, issue.4, pp.1150-1210, 2004.

. Ruiz-fabri, Le tiers à l'instance devant les juridictions internationales, vol.266, p.p, 2005.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00438787

R. Michael and T. Koenig, Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs, North California Law Review, vol.72, pp.91-162, 1993.

P. Rutherford and E. Propaganda, The Advertising of Public Goods, vol.400, 2000.

M. J. Saks, Improving APA Science Translation Amicus Briefs, Law & Human Behavior, vol.17, issue.2, pp.235-247, 1993.

W. Sadurski, Conventional Morality and Judicial Standards, Virginia Law Review, vol.73, pp.339-397, 1987.

D. Salas and L. T. Pouvoir, , vol.300, 2013.

R. Salzman, C. Williams, C. J. , C. Bryan, and T. , Determinants of The Number of Amicus Briefs Filed Before The, Justice System Journal, vol.32, issue.3, pp.293-313, 1953.

A. Sarat and N. Vidmar, Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Eighth Amendment: Testing the Marshall Hypothesis, Wisconsin Law Review, pp.171-207, 1976.

G. Sartori, Theory of Democracy Revisited, Part One: The Contemporary Debate, vol.247, 1987.

C. Saunders, Judicial Engagement with Comparative Law, Comparative Constitutional Law, pp.571-598, 2011.

T. Sauvel, Histoire du Jugement motivé, p.61, 1955.

A. Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, vol.176, p.p, 1997.

M. Schachter, The Utility of Pro Bono Representation of U.S.-Based Amicus Curiae in Non-U.S. and Multi-National Courts as a Means of Advancing The Public Interest, Fordham International Law Journal, vol.28, issue.1, pp.88-144, 2004.

J. S. Schacter, Lawrence v. Texas and the Fourteenth Amendment's Democratic Aspirations, Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, vol.13, p.733, 2004.

J. S. Schacter, The Gay Civil Rights Debate in the States: Decoding the Discourse of Equivalents, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol.29, p.299, 1994.

J. S. Schacter, What Marriage Equality Can Tell Us about Popular Constitutionalism (And Vice-Versa), Houston Law Review, vol.52, issue.4, p.1147, 2015.

J. S. Schacter, Obergefell's Audiences, Ohio State Law Journal, vol.77, issue.5, pp.1011-1037

J. Schaffer, &. Karlsson, and . Legitimacy, Global Governance and Human Rights Institutions: Inverting the Puzzle, pp.212-254, 2013.
DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.2066563

URL : https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/10852/47849/2/Legitimacy%2bglobal%2bgovernance%2band%2binternational%2bhuman%2brights%2binstitutions-%2binverting%2bthe%2bpuzzle.pdf

A. Schahmanèche, Pluralisme et motivation des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, Pluralisme et juges européens des droits de l'Homme, 2010.

A. Schahmanèche, La Motivation des décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, vol.844, p.p, 2012.

F. Schauer, The Decline of "The Record": A Comment on Posner, Duquesne Law Review, vol.51, pp.51-66, 2013.

S. A. Scheingold, The Politics of Rights. Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change, vol.224, p.p

G. Schubert, Picking Friends from the Crowd: Amicus Participation as Political Symbolism, Connecticut Law Review, vol.42, issue.1, pp.185-233, 1959.

S. Jeffrey, A. Spaeth, and H. J. , The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited, vol.480, p.p, 2002.

C. Selltiz, . Wrightsman, . Chein, . Isidor, and H. M. Proshansky, Research Methods In Social Relations, Methuen & Co, vol.662, p.p, 1965.

A. Sen, Elements of a Theory of Human Rights, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol.32, issue.4, pp.315-356, 2004.

M. Sen, Courting Deliberation: An Essay on Deliberative Democracy in the American Judicial System, Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy, vol.27, issue.2, pp.303-331, 2013.

L. Sermet, Yvonne Etienne, la page tournée de l'affaire Marlène Kress, AJDA, vol.41, pp.2249-2251, 2009.

M. Serota, Intelligible Justice, University of Miami Law Review, vol.66, pp.649-669

M. Shapiro, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago, vol.245, 1981.

M. Shapiro, The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy, On Law, Politics and Judicialization, pp.149-183, 2002.

B. J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading, vol.644, 1923.

L. Sicilianos, . Ruiz-fabri, . Hélène, and J. Sorel, La tierce intervention devant la cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Le tiers à l'instance devant les juridictions internationales, p.123, 2005.

W. H. Simon, The Ideology of Advocacy, Wisconsin Law Review, vol.29, pp.29-130, 1978.

A. Slaughter, A New World Order, vol.368, 2005.

A. Slaughter, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication, vol.29, pp.99-137, 1994.

D. L. Sloss, M. D. Ramsey, and W. S. Dodge, International Law in the, vol.656, p.p, 2012.

E. E. Slotnick, Media coverage of Supreme Court decision making: problems and prospects, Judicature, vol.75, issue.3, pp.128-142

P. M. Sniderman, J. F. Fletcher, . Russel, and H. Peter, The Clash of Rights: Liberty, Equality, and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy, vol.291, p.p, 1996.

N. B. Smith, An Analysis of the Neglected, but Nearly Absolute, Right of Petition, vol.54, pp.1153-1197, 1986.

C. E. Smith and T. Hensley, Assessing the Conservatism of the Rehnquist Court, Judicature, vol.77, 1993.

D. A. Snow and R. D. Benford, Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization, International Social Movement Research, vol.1, issue.1, pp.197-217, 1988.

D. Spielmann, Consensus et marge d'appréciation nationale, Journal des tribunaux 131 e année, pp.592-593, 2012.

S. Splichal, The Transnationalization of the Public Sphere and the Fate of the Public, vol.268, 2011.

S. Splichal, Public Opinion, Developments and Controversies in The Twentieth Century, vol.384, 1999.

J. F. Spriggs and P. J. Wahlbeck, Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court, Political Research Quarterly, vol.50, pp.365-386

G. Staszewski, Obergefell and Democracy, Boston University Law Review, vol.97, pp.31-102, 2017.

J. Sternberg, Deciding Not to Decide: The Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Discretionary Court, Journal of Supreme Court History, vol.33, issue.1, pp.1-16, 2008.

G. Stone, Understanding Supreme Court Confirmations, Supreme Court Review, vol.2010, pp.381-467, 2010.

S. Sweet, A. Brunell, and T. L. , Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes the Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, Journal of Law and Courts, vol.1, issue.1, pp.61-88, 2013.

S. Sweet, A. Keller, and H. , The Reception of the ECHR into national orders, Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, 2008.

S. Sweet and A. , On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court, vol.15, p.p, 2009.

S. Sweet and A. , On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.80, pp.923-944, 2009.

S. Sweet and A. , The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance, Living Reviews in European Governance, vol.5, 2010.

D. Stras, Understanding the New Politics of Judicial Appointments, Texas Law Review, vol.86, 2008.

F. Sudre, Droit européen et international des droits de l'homme, vol.944

F. Sudre, Droit Européen et International des Droits de l'Homme, Bruylant, vol.944, 2012.

F. Sudre, nouvelle frontière" de la Cour EDH, pp.1912-1920, 2013.

C. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before, vol.240, 2011.

C. Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, Yale Law Journal, vol.97, pp.1539-1590, 1998.

H. Surrel, Pluralisme et recours au consensus dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, Levinet, Michel, Pluralisme et juges européens des droits de l'Homme, pp.61-86, 2010.

H. Surrel, La cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans la presse française, La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme dans la presse, pp.55-70, 2013.

D. Tell, E. Miller, . Carl, R. Rhetoric, and J. Activism, The Case of Hillary Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Advances in the History of Rhetoric, vol.15, pp.185-203, 2012.

P. Texier, Jalons pour une histoire de la motivation des sentences", in Travaux de l'association Henri Capitant, La motivation, pp.5-15, 1998.

C. Tate and . Neal, Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, American Political Science Review, vol.75, issue.2, pp.355-367, 1981.

C. W. Thomas, Eighth Amendment Challenges to the Death Penalty: The Relevance of Informed Public Opinion, Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.30, pp.1005-1030, 1977.

M. Tushnet, The United States : Ecclectism in the Service of Pragmatism, Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative, pp.7-54

D. Q. Thomas, Advancing Rights Protection In The United States: An Internationalized Advocacy Strategy, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol.9, pp.15-26, 1996.

C. Tobias, Filling the Fourth Circuit Vacancies, North Carolina Law Review, vol.89, pp.2161-2200, 2010.

C. Tobias, Diversity and the Federal Bench, vol.87, pp.1197-1211, 2009.

A. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Complete and Unabridged, vol.976, 2004.

A. Tocqueville and . De-la-démocratie-en-amérique, , vol.444, p.p

F. Tulkens, V. Drooghenbroeck, S. , and K. Frédéric, Le soft law et la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme : questions de légitimité et de méthode, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.0, pp.433-491, 2012.

M. Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, vol.256, 2000.

G. Ulfstein, International Courts and Judges: Independence, Interaction, and Legitimacy, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 2014.

, PluriCourts Research Paper No. 14-13

G. Ulfstein, Festschrift to the 40th Year Anniversary of the Universität der Bundeswehr, 2014.

J. D. Ura and A. Merrill, The Supreme Court and Public Opinion, The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior, 2017.

L. Valentini, In What Sense are Human Rights Political? A Preliminary Exploration, Political Studies, vol.60, issue.1, pp.180-194, 2012.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00905.x

. Van-den-eynde, Interpreting Rights Collectively, Comparative Arguments in Public Interest Litigants' Briefs on Fundamental Rights Issues, vol.685, p.p, 2015.

G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany, vol.208, 2009.

G. Vedel, Le rôle de l'opinion en démocratie, vol.53, pp.305-326, 1966.

N. Vidmar and T. Dittenhoffer, Informed public opinion and death penalty attitudes, Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol.23, issue.1, pp.43-56, 1981.

A. Vlachogiannis, Les juges de la cour suprême des Etats-Unis et la notion de constitution vivante, Doctorate thesis, vol.685, 2011.

E. Voeten, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.9, issue.2, 2009.

E. Voeten, Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol.14, pp.411-436, 2013.

E. Voeten, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, International Organization, vol.61, pp.669-701, 2007.

E. Voeten, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.9, issue.2, pp.387-406, 2009.
DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.1266427

URL : https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1487&context=cjil

P. Wachsmann, Les méthodes d'interprétation des conventions internationales relatives à la protection des droits de l'homme, Société française pour le droit international, pp.157-195, 1998.

P. Wachsmann, Les droits de l'homme, Connaissance du droit, vol.180, 2002.

P. Wachsmann, Entre deux lacs-Quelques réflexions sur la Conférence d'Interlaken sur l'avenir de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, Revue Trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, vol.21, pp.511-534, 2010.

P. J. Wahlbeck, The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change, vol.59, pp.778-802, 1997.

P. M. Wald, The Rhetoric of Results and the Results of Rhetoric: Judicial Writings, Chicago Law Review, vol.62, issue.4, pp.1371-1419, 1995.

J. Waldron, The Core of the Case against Judicial Review, Yale Law Journal, vol.115, pp.1346-1406, 2006.

J. Waldron, The Dignity of Legislation, vol.224, 1999.
DOI : 10.1017/cbo9780511621987

J. Waldron, . Law, and O. Disagreement, , vol.344, 1999.

J. Waldron, Rights and the Citation of Foreign Law, The Legal Protection of Human Rights: Skeptical Essays, pp.411-427, 2011.

J. Waldron, Partly Laws Common to All Mankind": Foreign Law in American Courts, vol.344, p.p, 2012.

S. Warren and L. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review, vol.4, issue.5, pp.193-220, 1890.

G. Washington, J. Letter-to-george-washington-from, C. Jay, and . Justice, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. 4 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, pp.1890-93

J. Wedeking, Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing, American Journal of Political Science, vol.54, issue.3, pp.617-631, 2010.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00450.x

H. F. Weisberg, A. Krosnick-jon, and B. D. Bowen, An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling and Data Analysis, vol.3, p.p, 1996.

G. B. Wetlaufer, Rhetoric and Its Denial in Legal Discourse, Virginia Law Review, vol.76, pp.1545-1597, 1990.
DOI : 10.2307/1073163

K. E. Whittington, The New Originalism, The Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol.2, issue.2, pp.599-613, 2004.

K. E. Whittington, Political Foundation of Judicial Supremacy, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership, p.320, 2009.

C. B. Whitman, Televising the Court: A Category Mistake (Symposium on Televising the Supreme Court), Michigan Law Review First Impressions, vol.106, pp.5-7, 2007.

A. Wilkowska-landowska, Friends of the Court':The Role of Human Rights Non-governmental Organisations in the Litigation Proceedings, Human Rights Commentary, vol.2, 2006.

G. Williams, The Amicus Curiae and Intervener in the High Court of Australia: A Comparative Analysis, vol.28, pp.365-402, 2000.

R. F. Williams, In the Supreme Court's Shadow: Legitimacy of State Rejection of Supreme Court Reasoning and Result, South Carolina Law Review, vol.35, issue.3, pp.353-404, 1984.

B. Wilson, Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, vol.28, issue.3, pp.507-522, 1990.
DOI : 10.1111/j.174-1617.1992.tb01265.x

URL : http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1764&context=ohlj

J. G. Wilson, The Role of Public Opinion in Constitutional Interpretation, Brigham Young University Law Review, vol.1993, issue.4, pp.1037-1138, 1993.

F. G. Wilson, A Theory of Public Opinion, p.308, 1962.

A. Wilkowska-landowska, Friends of the Court':The Role of Human Rights Non-governmental Organisations in the Litigation Proceedings, Human Rights Law Commentary, vol.2, pp.99-119, 2006.

A. Wohl, Friends With Agendas Amicus Curiae Briefs May Be More Popular Than Persuasive, A.B.A. Journal, vol.82, p.p, 1996.

R. Wolfrum, The Taking and Assessment of Evidence by the European Court of Human Rights, Human rights : Democracy and the rule of law: liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber, pp.915-924, 2007.

A. Woolhandler, Rethinking the Judicial Reception of Legislative Facts, Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.41, issue.1, pp.111-126, 1988.

R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, vol.312, 2013.

E. A. Young, Foreign Law and the Denominator Problem, Harvard Law Review, vol.119, 2005.

J. Young and T. , The New American Government and Its Work, 1923.

M. Ziegler, Framing Change: Cause Lawyering, Constitutional Decisions, and Social Change, vol.58, p.18, 2010.
DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.1646395

K. Zuber, . Sommer, . Udi, and J. Parent, Setting the Agenda of the United States Supreme Court? Organized Interests and the Decision to File an Amicus Curiae Brief at Cert, Justice System Journal, vol.36, issue.2, pp.119-137, 2015.

C. Zurn, Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review, vol.366, 2009.

C. Zurn, Deliberative Democracy and Constitutional Review
DOI : 10.2307/3505058

E. Zoller, Freedom of Expression: "Precious Right" in Europe, Indiana Law Journal, vol.84, pp.803-808, 2009.

E. Zoller, The United States Supreme Court and the Freedom of Expression, Indiana Law Journal, vol.84, issue.3, pp.885-916, 2009.

. Zwart, More human rights than Court: Why the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is in need of repair and how it can be done, The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents. Turning Criticism into Strength, 2013.

, Nomination of candidates and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Assembly debate on, vol.1646, 2009.

, Protection of "whistle-blowers, PACE Resolution 1729, 2010.

, Analysis of statistics, 2014.

I. Jurisconsult and . Follow-up, Principle of Subsidiarity, vol.304, pp.321-323, 2002.

. Baker-v and . Carr, , p.186, 1962.

B. V. Matteo, , p.575, 1959.

. Barrows-v and . Jackson, , p.249, 1953.

B. V. Illinois, , p.250, 1952.

. Bond-v and . Floyd, , p.116, 1966.

. Bowers-v-hardwick, , p.186, 1986.

. Brandenburg-v and . Ohio, , vol.395, p.444, 1969.

C. , , p.568, 1942.

C. V. , Population Planning International, 1977.

. Coker-v and . Georgia, , vol.433, p.584, 1977.

C. V. Myers, , p.138, 1983.

C. V. Harney, , p.367, 1947.

D. , , p.855, 1966.

, Department of Agriculture v, Moreno 413 U.S, vol.528, 1970.

D. V. , , p.186, 2010.

E. V. Baird, , pp.405-438, 1972.

, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S, vol.1, p.347, 1976.

Y. Ex-parte, , p.123, 1908.

, Federal Election Commission v. Atkins, 524 U.S, vol.11, p.24, 1998.

. Fitzpatrick-v and . Bitzer, , p.445, 1776.

F. V. Florida, , p.990, 2002.

. Frohwerk, , p.204, 1919.

. Furman-v and . Georgia, , p.238, 1972.

G. V. Welch, , p.323, 1974.

. Gitlow, , p.652, 1925.

G. V. Connecticut, , p.479, 1965.

. Grosjean, , 1936.

H. V. Louisiana, , p.134, 1890.

. Hollingsworth-v and . Perry, , 2013.

, Houchins KQED, Inc. 438 U.S, vol.1, 1978.

, Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432, p.333, 1977.

, Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US, vol.46, 1988.

O. In-re, , p.257, 1948.

L. V. City and . Griffin, , vol.444, p.450, 1938.

, Cranch), p.137, 1803.

F. Mcconnell-v, S. , and C. , , vol.619, p.729, 2003.

, New York Times Co. v, p.254, 1964.

O. and C. V. Donaldson, , vol.563, p.575, 1975.

, Society of Sisters, 1925.

, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v, p.833, 1992.

. Poe-v.-ullman, , p.497, 1961.

, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US, vol.367, p.390, 1969.

R. V. Wade, , p.113, 1973.

R. , , p.476, 1957.

R. V. , Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, p.1063, 1997.

. Schneider, , vol.147, p.161, 1939.

. Snyder-v and . Phelps, , vol.562, 2011.

S. V. Washington, , p.405, 1974.

. Thornhill-v.-alabama, , pp.310-88, 1940.

, Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S, vol.374, 1967.

T. V. Dulles, , vol.815, p.838, 1988.

. Twinging, , p.78, 1908.

. United-states-v.-o'brien, , pp.391-367, 1968.

, Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't, vol.21, 1980.

. Webster, Reproductive Health Services, 92 U.S, vol.490, 1989.

W. V. Yoder, , p.205, 1972.

W. V. Georgia, , p.261, 1962.

. , 1.3. Other Federal and State Supreme Courts Decisions U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit United States v, pp.12-2826, 1952.

, 763 N.W.2d, vol.862, p.3, 2009.

, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Eakin v. Raub, 12 Serg & Rawle, vol.300, pp.348-355, 1825.

, Supreme Court of California In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal, p.15, 2008.

, Decisions of the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights 2.3.1. European Commission on Human Rights

E. Observer-and-guardian-v-uk, , pp.14-153, 1989.

. Ecommhr, , 1963.

B. Ecommhr and S. , German Federal Republic, Appl

, ECommHR, Demirbas and 18 other applicants v. Turkey, vol.75, 1976.

. Ecommhr, , 1962.

. Ecommhr, Association X. and 165 liquidators and court appointed administrators v

A. France, , vol.9939, p.4, 1983.

A. B. Ecthr and . Ireland, , p.16, 2010.

A. V. Ecthr and . Ireland, , 1979.

. Ecthr, Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, Appl, p.14, 2016.

A. V. Ecthr and . Russia, , 2010.

B. Ecthr and O. V. Poland, , 2007.

. Ecthr, , 2001.

B. V. Ecthr and . France, , 2006.

. Ecthr, T. V. Bucur, and . Roumania, , 2013.

B. V. Ecthr, , p.29, 2008.

C. Ecthr, Cosans v. The United Kingdom, p.22, 1983.

C. V. Ecthr and . Spain, , 1992.

. Ecthr, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v, Romania, Appl, issue.47848, p.17, 2014.

C. Ecthr and O. V. France, , p.29, 1999.

C. Ecthr and . Goodwin, , p.11, 2002.

C. Ecthr, . Hachette-filipacchi-associés-v, and . France, , 2015.

C. Ecthr,

C. Ecthr, , 2001.

D. Ecthr and . Becker-v-belgium, , vol.56, 1962.

D. Ecthr, G. V. Hars, and . Belgium, , 1997.

D. V. Ecthr and . Belgium, , p.17, 1970.

D. R. Ecthr and E. Prada-v.-spain, , p.12, 2013.

D. Ecthr, The United Kingdom, vol.76, 1983.

D. Ecthr and O. V. France, , 1914.

E. B. Ecthr and . France, , p.22, 2008.

. Ecthr, Editions Plon v. France, Appl, 2004.

E. Ecthr and . Ve, Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi v. Turkey, Appl, p.25

E. Ecthr and . Ince-v, Turkey, Appl. Nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, p.8, 1999.

E. Ecthr, United Kingdom, App, p.15, 2013.

L. Ecthr, A. V. 'erablière, and . Belgium, , 2009.

F. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , 1987.

F. Ecthr and D. Party, ÖZDEP) v. Turkey, 1999.

F. V. Ecthr and . France, , 2002.

G. V. Ecthr and . Italy,

. Ecthr, . Genderdoc-m-v, and . Moldova, , p.12, 2012.

G. Ecthr, United Kingdom, 1975.

G. Ecthr, , 1996.

G. Ecthr and . Moldova, , 2008.

G. V. Ecthr and . Italy, , vol.74, 1976.

H. Ecthr, . Filipacchi-associés-v, and . France, , p.14, 2007.

. Ecthr, Holy Monasteries v. Greece, Appl. Nos. 13092, vol.87, issue.13984, 1994.

I. Ecthr, , vol.99, 2004.

. Ecthr, , vol.93, 1998.

I. Ecthr and . Austria, , vol.79, 1987.

I. Ecthr, , 1925.

J. S. Ecthr and . Ireland, 24882/94), 2001.

J. V. Ecthr and . Poland, , 1999.

J. V. Ecthr and . Denmark, , 1994.

J. M. Ecthr, , p.28, 2010.

J. V. Ecthr and U. K. The, , p.17, 1986.

J. Ecthr and O. V. Ireland, , p.18

K. Ecthr and O. V. Hungary, , p.17, 2016.

K. V. Ecthr and . Turkey, , p.11454, 1989.

K. V. Ecthr and . Poland, , 2010.

K. K. Ecthr, The Netherlands, Appl, 2001.

K. Ecthr and O. V. Germany, , 1978.

K. V. Ecthr and . Russia, 25551/05, 1, 2010.

K. V. Ecthr and . France, , vol.98, 2001.

K. V. Ecthr and . Poland, , 2008.

K. V. Ecthr and . Cyprus, , 2005.

L. Ecthr and O. V. France, , 2015.

L. V. Ecthr and . Italy, , 2009.

L. V. Ecthr and . Italy, , 2011.

L. Ecthr, Laggard and Brown v the United Kingdom, 1997.

L. V. Ecthr and . Ireland, 332/57, 1 st of, 1961.

L. V. Ecthr, , 2001.

L. Ecthr and S. A. , Ciné Revue v. Belgium, Appl, issue.9, 2006.

L. Ecthr and I. V. France, , 1998.

L. Ecthr, -. Otchakovsky, and J. V. France, , p.22, 2007.

L. V. Ecthr and . Austria, , 1986.

L. V. Ecthr and . Turkey, , 1995.

L. Ecthr, S. V. Gomes-da, and . Portugal, , vol.97, 2000.

L. Ecthr and U. K. Beckett-v.-the, , vol.96, p.27

M. V. Ecthr and . Germany, , 2009.

M. Ecthr and . Askarov-v-turkey, , 2005.

M. Ecthr, . Estevez-v, and . Spain, , 2001.

M. Ecthr, . Maciejewski-v, and . Poland, , p.13, 2013.

M. C. Ecthr and C. A. , Romania, Appl, p.12, 2016.

M. D. Ecthr, . Ljubljana-v, and . Slovenia, , 2014.

M. Ecthr and . France, , 2015.

M. Ecthr and O. V. Switzerland, , p.24, 1988.

M. Ecthr and O. Erdogan, Turkey, Appl, p.39779, 2014.

N. V. Ecthr and . Germany, , 1987.

N. V. Ecthr and . Ireland, , 1988.

O. Ecthr, , p.23, 1991.

O. Ecthr and . Guardian, , vol.88, 1991.

O. Ecthr, Italy, Appl. Nos, 2015.

O. M. Ecthr and . Hungary, , vol.15, 2016.

, ECtHR Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, Appl, 2000.

P. Ecthr, Croatia, Appl. No, 2016.

P. B. Ecthr and J. S. Austria, , p.22, 2010.

P. Ecthr, , p.27, 2015.

P. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , p.17, 2013.

P. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , 2015.

P. Ecthr and . Hoang-v-france, , vol.87, 1992.

P. Ecthr and . Bloch-v.-france, , pp.10-12, 1997.

P. Ecthr and A. Oberschlick, , vol.90, 1995.

. Ecthr, Refah Partisi and Socialist Party and others v, 2003.

S. Ecthr, . Da-silva-mouta-v, and . Portugal, , 1999.

S. A. Ecthr and . France, , vol.11, 2014.

S. Ecthr and K. , Austria, Appl, p.24, 2010.

S. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , 1998.

S. V. Ecthr and . Poland, , vol.98, p.27, 2003.

. Ecthr, G. V. Smith, and U. K. , Appl.No. 33985/96 and 33986/96, p.27, 1999.

S. Ecthr, , 1989.

. Ecthr, Socialist Party and others v, vol.25, 1998.

S. V. Ecthr, , 2002.

. Ecthr, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, Appl. Nos. 29221/95 29225/95, 2001.

S. V. Ecthr and . France, , 2011.

S. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , 2007.

S. Ecthr and K. Kessler, Germany, Appl, issue.22, 2001.

. Ecthr, Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, vol.74, 1979.

S. V. Ecthr, U. K. The, and . App, 25186/94, 1 st, 1997.

?. V. Ecthr and . Turkey, , 2000.

S. V. Ecthr and . Ukraine, , p.31, 2011.

S. V. Ecthr and . Turkey, , p.8, 1999.

S. V. Ecthr and . Switzerland, , 2007.

. Ecthr, . Taddeucci-&-mccall-v, and . Italy, , 2016.

T. V. Ecthr and . Estonia, Appl. No. 51205/98, 2001.

. Ecthr, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Appl, vol.239, 1992.

T. E. Ecthr and . Germany, , p.16, 2014.

. Ecthr, Timpul Info-Magazin And Anghel v. Moldova, 42864/05, vol.27, 2007.

. Ecthr-tomasi-v and . France, Tønsbergs Blad As And Haukom v. Norway, Appl, 1992.

, ECtHR Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Appl, 1978.

. Ecthr, Unified Communist Party of Turkey and Others (TBKP) v. Turkey, Appl. No. 19392/92, 1998.

V. V. Ecthr and . Greece, , 2013.

. Ecthr, O. V. Vejdeland, and . Sweden, , 2012.

V. Ecthr, . Hannover-v, and . Germany, , p.24, 2004.

V. Ecthr, . Hannover, . Von-hannover-v, and . Germany, , 2012.

V. V. Ecthr and . Germany, , 1995.

W. Ecthr, Netherlands, Appl. No, vol.6301, 1979.

X. Ecthr and . Austria, , 2013.

X. V. Ecthr and U. K. Com, , vol.75, 1977.

E. Young, . James-&-webster-v, and . Uk, Appl. Nos, vol.7601, p.13, 1981.

E. V. Ecthr-yvonne and . France, , 2009.

. Ecthr, . Zielinski, . Pradal, O. V. Gonzalez, and . France, , 1999.

, European Domestic Courts Great Britain: House of Lords, Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, 2012.

, Statistical Data ISTAT-i.e. the Italian national institute of statistics

T. State and . .. Research, 2.2. The Birth of an Academic Interest for the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Court 17 2.3. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION, 1.2. New Rhetoric and the New Focus on Audiences
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00338143

. , The American and European Concepts and Regimes of Rights Protection

C. .. Objects,

. , 61 1. PUBLIC OPINION IN POLITICAL SYSTEMS DEDICATED TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 62 1.1. DEMOCRACY FROM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO THE POWER OF OPINION

. .. , 2.1.1. Returning to a Deliberative Understanding of Public Opinion Legitimacy, Disintegration of the Will of the People and Takeover of Public Opinion, vol.87

, JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS BETWEEN FORUMS OF PRINCIPLE AND REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS, vol.99

A. .. ,

. , 101 2.1.1.1. Democracy and the Judiciary: A Compatibility Based on Reason, The Judiciary as the Institution of Reason

. , 1.2.2. Courts' Real-Life Deliberative Performance: Reason Versus Public Deliberation, The Deliberative Ideal: Courts as Forums of Debate

. , 2.2.2. The Judiciary as an Arbiter Between Fundamental Rights Philosophies, Consensus Constitutionalist Doctrine: The Courts and Mainstream Public Opinion

C. Of and . .. Opinion, 1.1.1. The United States Supreme Court Reforms and the Decrease of Public Access, CHAPTER
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/pasteur-02193225

. .. Relief, 160 1.1.2.1. Public Access and The United States Supreme Court's Standing Doctrine, The Substantial Improvement of Plaintiffs' Access to Judicial

. , 2.1.1. Access to Public Hearings and Courts' Public Visibility

. , 2.2.1. The Excessive Political Visibility of Supreme Court Confirmation, 2.2.2. Media Discretion and the Lack of Public Accountability of ECtHR Judges' Election Process, p.180

F. Of-court, . Between-participants, . Experts, and . .. Lobbyists, , p.186

T. .. Tool, 187 2.1.1.1. The Origins of Amicus Curiae: From Legal Experts to Partisan Interveners

U. S. Supreme-court-rules and . .. Practice,

. , 201 2.1.2.1. Steady Increase in Third Party Participation as an Instauration of a Dialogic Dynamic Between Third Parties and the Courts, 1.2. Third Party Intervention as Indirect Expression of the Public

. , 2.2.1. The Supreme Court's Evidence Problem: Lack of Constraints on Amici Briefs and the Problem of Reliability, Reliability Issues and the Normative Consequences of Third-Party Lobbying on Judicial Authority

. , 2.2. Citizens Freedom from Defamation Actions for Public Criticism

A. Protection, . Public, and . .. Speech,

. , Public Concern Speech and the Promotion of the Ideal of Informed Opinion

. , 2.1. The Need for the Press Against Government Abuse

. , Freedom of the Press and Contributions to General Interest Debate

P. Interpretation, . The, and . .. Gay-rights, 311 1.1.1. The evolution of Same Sex Litigation, CHAPTER

.. .. Before-dudgeon, 326 2.1.2.2. Local Public Opinion Alone as Insufficient Justification

. , 2.3. Lawrence v. Texas and the Final Blow on Worst Types of Discriminations

A. .. Europe, 357 3.1.2. The Right to Marry and the Case of Transsexuals: The Increasing Observation of Social Evolution, 357 3.1.1. Same-sex De Facto Partnerships: Becoming "Family Life"

. , Hundreds of Thousands"of People

. Teleological and . .. Evolving, Hodges: Courts as a Rational and Participatory Institution Solving Important Social Questions

C. .. Conclusion:,

G. .. Conclusion,

T. .. De-doctorat,

C. .. Introductif,

L. 'après-guerre and .. .. La-nouvelle-logique-juridique, 2.1. La recherche américaine sur le rôle de l'opinion publique dans la fonction de juger

. , 24 2.4. L'égale importance des droits dans les systèmes juridiques américains et européens .. 29 2.4.1. La protection des droits en Europe et aux États-Unis

P. .. De-l'analyse,

S. .. , , p.52

.. .. ,

M. , C. Publications, . And, and . .. Articles,

B. Posts and . .. Newspaper-articles,

L. Sources and . .. Case-law*,

. .. Other-research-tools, , vol.53, p.1