Trust and Legitimacy in Specialised Courts: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Institutional Authority

This paper examines how specialised courts function as distinctive governance actors. While trust and legitimacy in general courts are well-studied, their interaction within specialised courts remains underexplored despite such institutions' growing role in adjudication. The relationship between trust and legitimacy in specialised courts operates through distinct but interconnected pathways. Trust can be both a component of and precursor to legitimacy in specialised courts. Trust emerges from direct experience and observed performance, while legitimacy develops through systematic institutional embedding. We present a theoretical framework distinguishing between trust (expectations about future behaviour) and legitimacy (acceptance of institutional authority) in specialised courts. Our analysis reveals that such courts follow a distinct pattern of authority development: they often experience an initial legitimacy deficit while possessing high potential for rapid trust-building through technical expertise in the form of technically qualified judges. This creates a tension: while specialized courts gain authority within expert communities through use of technical expertise, this very specialisation may limit their perceived legitimacy among the broader public. The Unified Patent Court (UPC), operational since June 2023 across 18 EU Member States, illustrates these dynamics. Despite its institutional design, the UPC faces legitimacy challenges stemming from its constitutional issues and concerns about technically qualified judges' impartiality. These judges function as intermediaries and boundary spanners between expert communities and broader societal actors while navigating complex multi-level governance structures. This paper seeks to contribute to governance literature by identifying how specialised courts develop institutional authority through interconnected but distinct pathways of trust and legitimacy. We argue that authority requires both technical competence within epistemic communities and broader societal acceptance. The exact pathway remains unclear so far. We highlight how specialised courts must balance technical expertise with broader acceptance from societal actors to effectively function in complex governance systems that transcend national boundaries.