At the same time, however, advocates of IJD also have promoted greater interaction and discussion among jurists from different courts.
In my view, Judges in Contemporary Democracy provides strong support for advocates of the weak form of IJD.
Although the problems associated with the strong form of IJD begin with the problems of understanding the context and meaning of foreign legal precedents, they do not end there.
Advocates of the strong form of IJD would do well to consider whether they would support IJD as enthusiastically if, at the end of the day, what the world really wants is not Coke but rather a warm beer or a nice Chianti.
Part I of this Review Essay takes up the theory of IJD and its principal features and makes some preliminary assessments of the potential costs and benefits of IJD, in both its "strong" and "weak" forms.
Without belaboring the visual metaphor of a figure remarkably similar to Justice wielding a club rather than scales, I should note that efforts to incorporate a strong form of IJD, such as the direct incorporation of foreign legal precedents, risks judicial disaster.
To appreciate fully the potential lessons of Judges in Contemporary Democracy, one must have a basic understanding both of IJD theory and the means legal scholars have proposed for actually implementing it.
A Brief Review of IJD, Its Proponents, and Its Critics
27) Professor Slaughter's "analysis of transjudicial communication focused academic interest on the judicial use of extrajurisdictional sources," (28) however, and she arguably serves as the academy's most visible and influential proponent of IJD.
30) According to Slaughter, specific benefits from "established and frequent" IJD include improved "quality of judicial decision-making," (31) a perception that participating courts are "members of a transnational community of law," (32) "an increased blurring of the lines between national and international law," (33) and "the spread and enhanced protection of universal human rights.