Judicial Populism And The Erosion Of International Law: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Of Legal And Political Narratives In Humanitarian Interventions
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 27
- 1 min read
Vishal Vijaya Krishnan. K, LLM, School of Law Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates how judicial populism, particularly, is shaped by the Political influence and politicization of the Judicial selection process, with significant impact and dominance by the Executive, subservient to the political whims and fancies of the Populist political regime, and how these influences and politicization corrode international law, with a focus on humanitarian interventions. Through a comparative constitutional analysis of the United States, India, and Israel, the paper tries to examine how the Court has started to align itself with the Populist executive agenda, reframing itself around the aspects of sovereignty, intervention, and Accountability. In each jurisdiction, the process and mechanism of judicial appointment range from partisan elections to executive-dominated selection committees, which have enabled the politicization of judicial appointments and weakened the independence of the judiciary. The study explores how selection procedures that influence the Judiciary through fundamental jurisprudential shifts and methods that eventually legitimize the unilateral intervention often bypass the legal framework and international humanitarian laws. By synthesising and understanding major jurisprudential trends, normative critiques, and institutional dynamics, the paper argues that judicial populism erodes constitutional safeguards domestically and destabilizes the global legal order. The article tries to provide critical insights into the problems and deliver reforms to address the issues raised.
Keywords: Populism, Populist Government, Judicial Populism, R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Principle, Human rights violation, Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Interventionism.
