What explains institutional instability in national judicial institutions? Much extant research focuses on de facto institutional instability, emphasizing political motivations behind irregular changes to high court composition. In contrast, I consider the causes for de jure chan- ges made to the Ecuadorian Supreme Court from 1979 to the present, drawing on qualitative and quantitative analyses. I contend that the judicialization of politics and presidential interest in stacking the courts are central explanatory factors, and that changes to the Supreme Court's institutional framework reflect implicit compromises and political arrangements negotiated by strategic political actors. As such, institutional reforms to national judicial instiuttions may beadopted to ameliorate conflict in the larger political sphere.

What explains institutional instability in national judicial institutions? Much extant research focuses on de facto institutional instability, emphasizing political motivations behind irregular changes to high court composition. In contrast, I consider the causes for de jure chan- ges made to the Ecuadorian Supreme Court from 1979 to the present, drawing on qualitative and quantitative analyses. I contend that the judicialization of politics and presidential interest in stacking the courts are central explanatory factors, and that changes to the Supreme Court's institutional framework reflect implicit compromises and political arrangements negotiated by strategic political actors. As such, institutional reforms to national judicial instiuttions may beadopted to ameliorate conflict in the larger political sphere.

This paper reviews how judges’ values, attitudes, and culture influence their judicial decisions by exploring the origins and current trends in judicial behavior studies. It highlights significant empirical contributions and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to thoroughly analyze court rulings using qualitative and quantitative tools to understand the underlying rationality in judicial decision-making.

What explains institutional instability in national judicial institutions? Much extant research focuses on de facto institutional instability, emphasizing political motivations behind irregular changes to high court composition. In contrast, I consider the causes for de jure chan- ges made to the Ecuadorian Supreme Court from 1979 to the present, drawing on qualitative and quantitative analyses. I contend that the judicialization of politics and presidential interest in stacking the courts are central explanatory factors, and that changes to the Supreme Court's institutional framework reflect implicit compromises and political arrangements negotiated by strategic political actors. As such, institutional reforms to national judicial instiuttions may beadopted to ameliorate conflict in the larger political sphere.

This paper reviews how judges’ values, attitudes, and culture influence their judicial decisions by exploring the origins and current trends in judicial behavior studies. It highlights significant empirical contributions and underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to thoroughly analyze court rulings using qualitative and quantitative tools to understand the underlying rationality in judicial decision-making.