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.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

. , 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,