ABSTRACT
For some scholars, certain international justice mechanisms can contribute to judicialization at the national level. Hirschl (2008) has proposed that judicialization of mega-politics may account for the growing phenomenon of judicial activism, embracing ‘everything political’, from ‘judicial scrutiny of executive branch prerogatives’ to rulings on electoral processes, restorative justice, and regime legitimacy (p. 98). For Cambodia, establishment of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, a hybrid court, would fit Hirschl’s definition of judicialization of mega-politics in the case of transitional justice (Hirschl 2008: 93–8). However, it might not justify an assumption of further judicialization of the Cambodian court system. Because the tribunal is embedded in the political system, its impact on the Cambodian judiciary generally is minimal and is unlikely to bring any substantial change to the Cambodian courts (Un and Ledgerwood 2010).
