For many, the growing judicialization of international relations is the next step in the process toward the complete legalization of international politics. We draw on the literature in comparative judicial politics to examine the limits of the phenomenon. The domestic literature on judicialization portrays the process as something of a one-way ratchet. In an increasingly juridified world, judges have been asked to take on greater roles in global governance, and seem to be doing so with aplomb. This in turn incentivizes individuals and interest groups to frame their policy claims in legal terms, providing ever-more fuel for judicial governance. Yet many courts and other legal institutions, both domestic and international, have had their jurisdiction constrained, with some areas of law removed from judicial purview. Might the dynamics of constraint and backlash lead to the dejuridification of an area that has been judicialized? We conceptualize the possibility of what we call dejudicialization, situate it in the context of the literature on backlash, and delimit its potential scope and implications. While dejudicialization is empirically rare, we argue that its very possibility suggests that judicialization should not be considered a teleological process.

中文翻译：

---

国际政治的非司法化？

对于许多人来说，日益增长的国际关系司法化是朝着国际政治完全合法化迈出的下一步。我们借鉴比较司法政治中的文献来研究这种现象的局限性。国内有关司法化的文献将这一过程描述为单向棘轮。在一个日益法治化的世界中，法官被要求在全球治理中发挥更大的作用，并且似乎正在坚定地这样做。反过来，这也激发了个人和利益集团以法律术语界定其政策主张的可能性，为司法治理提供了越来越多的动力。然而，国内和国际的许多法院和其他法律机构的管辖权受到限制，某些法律领域已脱离司法权限。约束力和反冲力的动态可能会导致已合法化的地区的司法化吗？我们将所谓的司法化的可能性概念化，将其置于关于反冲的文献中，并界定其可能的范围和含义。尽管从经验上讲，不司法化是很少见的，但我们认为，很有可能表明司法化不应被视为目的论过程。