Abstract

This paper seeks to assess the role that references to non-binding materials such as foreign law and extra-legal knowledge could play in the so-called judicialization of politics. While comparative law is far from manifesting its best interpretative potential in practice, the fact remains that many apex or other higher courts use it to strengthen the legitimacy of their decisions. Since foreign law does not carry any authoritative meaning within the framework of a national legal system, the act of resorting to it is therefore always a political gesture that can be, at one and the same time, decried as arbitrary or hailed as a fruitful tool of judicial dialogue and consensus building. For their part, extra-legal references raise the equally challenging question of knowing whether judges are well equipped to assess complex social issues that go beyond the mere context of a case. Reading and integrating such non-binding elements into judicial discourse poses a series of challenges for the judge before the task. My contribution will evaluate these challenges and will advance a number of conclusions regarding the potential perils of using hetero-referential arguments uncritically and instrumentally.