Katerina Linos co-writes for The Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017
The plan was initially supposed to transfer approximately 120,000 refugees from Greece and Italy to Central and Western Europe. However, key East European member states, including Hungary and Slovakia, forcefully opposed this decision from the get-go. … Wednesday, the E.U.’s highest court provided a final judgment rejecting these challenges and opened the door for significant refugee burden-sharing.
Katerina Linos co-writes for The Washington Post, June 28, 2017
Unlike presidents or members of Congress, justices do not speak directly to the public. … Therefore, the messages used by media, and television news in particular, have tremendous ability to shape how Americans respond to the Supreme Court. And media outlets tend to be far more deferential in reporting on court decisions than when reporting on Congress or the presidency. They often treat a court decision as the final word, rather than the beginning of a debate.
Katerina Linos writes for SCOTUSblog, Feb. 24, 2017
We found that the Supreme Court can shift Americans’ views – and did in fact significantly increase the popularity of the individual mandate. This effect, however, is driven by one-sided media coverage – by a choice media outlets often make to treat Supreme Court decisions with far more deference than they treat presidential and congressional choices. Given sufficient media coverage for a particular court case, this choice on the part of the media means the court does have the ability to lead public opinion.
Katerina Linos and co-author write for The New York Times, Sept. 29, 2016
So the good news is that firmly specified standards, even in a nonbinding agreement, can positively shift states’ behavior. But there’s a cautionary note: Compromises made through weak recommendations on controversial items will, at best, not help your cause. At worst, these compromises may actually undercut your objectives.
Andrew Guzman and Katerina Linos write for The Huffington Post Blog, July 8, 2014
We see no perfect solution to the problem of human rights backsliding. This is not good news, but it is surely better to recognize the risk than to ignore it. Turning a blind eye to the potential for backsliding and assuming that international agreements and courts can only lead to improved human rights is surely more dangerous than acknowledging the fact that reality is more complex.
Katerina Linos writes for Opinio Juris, June 26, 2013
Ryan Goodman’s work has changed the way we think about human rights, the law of war, and interdisciplinary scholarship in international law more generally. Goodman’s path-breaking article “How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law” has lead many international lawyers to focus not only on only political science and economics, but also on sociology. It inspired me to write this book.
Katerina Linos interviewed on CCTV News, March 14, 2013
Google cars were moving around the U.S., around the world, taking photographs of people’s houses in order for the street map application to work. But along with these photographs, they were also collecting a lot of personal data that was unencrypted, so people’s emails and other private information were surreptitiously recorded and stored by Google.
Katerina Linos interviewed by CCTV, March 7, 2013
“In Europe, there’s a deep concern that companies will take private citizens’ data and misuse it. In the U.S., we have less concern about what private corporations will do and more concern about the government overreaching.”
Katerina Linos and Kim Twist write for SCOTUSblog, March 7, 2013
These findings suggest that the Supreme Court can lead American opinion and contribute significantly to processes of social change. The Court’s ability to shape the views of independent voters is especially noteworthy, as these are often the swing voters critical to election outcomes. That said, powerful dissents can greatly limit the Court’s influence.