The perception that a high court's decision is binding and final is a crucial prerequisite for its ability to settle political conflicts. Under what conditions are citizens more likely to accept controversial judicial rulings? Mass acceptance is determined, in part, by how rulings are framed during public debate. This paper takes a broad view of the strategies and actors that influence the discursive environment surrounding judgments, calling attention to hitherto unexamined determinants of mass acceptance. We theorize that third parties can boost acceptance by pledging compliance, and that courts can moderate opposition by compensating losers. We also look at how populist attacks on judiciaries, common in contemporary democracies, affect acceptance. We test these propositions using a survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court's Brexit decision, the most salient judgment handed down by this court to date. The paper moves the literature on courts and public opinion beyond the United States, and presents evidence backing largely untested assumptions at the heart of models of judicial behavior regarding the benefits of crafting rulings with an eye on the preferences of key audiences.

中文翻译：

---

补偿与合规：英国最高法院对英国退欧裁决的公众认可

认为高等法院的裁决具有约束力和终局性的观念，是其解决政治冲突能力的关键先决条件。在什么条件下，公民更有可能接受有争议的司法裁决？大众接受程度部分取决于公开辩论期间的裁决框架。本文对影响判决的话语环境的策略和参与者进行了广泛的介绍，呼吁人们关注迄今为止未经审查的大众接受性决定因素。我们认为，第三方可以通过保证遵守承诺来提高接受度，而法院可以通过补偿失败者来缓解异议。我们还将研究当代民主国家中民粹主义对司法机构的攻击如何影响人们的接受程度。我们使用英国最高法院退欧裁决后进行的一项调查实验来检验这些主张，这是该法院迄今为止作出的最显着的判决。这篇论文将有关法院和公众舆论的文献移到了美国以外的地区，并提出了证据，这些证据在司法行为模型的核心方面提供了未经检验的假设，这些假设涉及着眼于主要受众的偏好而作出裁决的好处。