Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article explains post-decision monitoring by high courts in new democracies, indicating the role of civil society.
This article explains when and why high courts in new democracies engage in post-decision monitoring to secure compliance with their rulings. We develop a theory of strategic monitoring in which judges, lacking enforcement capacity, selectively deploy oversight mechanisms in response to reputational risks generated by social pressure. Leveraging an original dataset of 6,093 decisions from Ecuador’s Constitutional Court (2015–2024), we show that the presence and intensity of amicus curiae participation significantly increase the likelihood of monitoring, while budgetary resources and political salience do not. These findings indicate that courts engage in institutional triage, prioritizing cases where non-compliance is most likely to generate public scrutiny. The article advances a large-N perspective on post-decision enforcement highlighting the pivotal role of civil-society participation in strengthening judicial compliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valdivieso-Kastner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: