In today’s global governance system, the connection between domestic legal transformations and positions on international legal norms is more intertwined than ever before. Two key developments in 2025 have made Mexico a noteworthy case: the country held public votes for judicial appointments for the first time in its history, and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers. These developments call for a deeper analysis of shifting state sovereignty, judicial independence, democratic legitimacy, and the limits of international responsibility regimes.
In elections held in June 2025, Mexico adopted a plebiscitary model as part of its judicial restructuring process. Following a constitutional reform approved in 2024, many federal and local judges were elected directly by the public. While this move appears to enhance democratic accountability on the surface, the content and execution of the process sparked serious debates concerning judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers.
A symbolic yet controversial appointment was that of Hugo Aguilar Ortiz to the Supreme Court. Although his selection marked a step forward in indigenous representation, his close ties with the ruling Morena Party raised concerns over judicial politicization. While public voting may seem to support democratic participation, the possibility of manipulation by political parties risks weakening the judiciary’s independence. Although these constitutional changes are a matter of domestic law, they remain subject to scrutiny in light of international norms on judicial independence. Efforts by political power to shape the judiciary invite criticism not only in national terms but also within the framework of human rights obligations and the rule of law.
Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S.-based gun manufacturers represents an example of attempting to address transnational harm through legal channels. Mexico argued that rising violence in the country was fueled by illegal firearm trafficking from the U.S. and filed a $10 billion lawsuit against companies such as Smith & Wesson, Colt, and Glock. However, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case on June 5, 2025, citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields manufacturers from liability for criminal misuse of their products. This highlights how U.S. domestic law offers legal immunity against cross-border claims by foreign states, challenging the balance between national legislation and international responsibility.
In international law, state responsibility for cross-border actions or omissions has gained importance, especially in areas like environmental harm, arms trafficking, and human rights violations. However, the current system lacks effective mechanisms to remedy the grievances of affected states. The domestic legal frameworks of powerful nations can render international norms ineffective. In this context, the PLCAA significantly obstructs avenues for redress by shielding the arms industry from external claims.
[1]Both developments point to an evolving notion of sovereignty. Traditional Westphalian sovereignty presumes absolute authority over domestic and foreign affairs. Today, however, such absoluteness is constrained by international legal norms and global governance structures. In Mexico’s case, the internal aspect of sovereignty is redefined through judicial elections in line with popular sovereignty, though it also risks political centralization. The lawsuit in the U.S., meanwhile, illustrates the external aspect of sovereignty, underscoring how powerful states can b[i]ypass international justice through domestic legal shields.
Mexico’s attempt to sue U.S. corporations also ties into broader debates on the accountability of non-state and private actors under international law. The concept of transnational justice becomes vital in this context. Legal loopholes in one country enabling mass violence in another cannot be addressed solely through domestic laws. Thus, international customs law and the principles of state responsibility must be considered for cross-border harm.
Mexico’s judicial reform and its legal challenge against U.S. arms makers highlight both the transformation of national sovereignty and the structural limits of international law. The former reflects tensions between democratization and executive influence over the judiciary; the latter exposes how domestic protections in powerful countries can undermine international responsibility mechanisms.
This underscores the need for an international legal system with both normative strength to regulate inter-state responsibility and institutional capacity to address claims arising from private actors’ cross-border harm. Without such a framework, global justice will remain subject to the domestic laws of the most powerful.
[1] “Indigenous lawyer to head Mexico’s supreme court after direct election”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/04/hugo-aguilar-mexico-supreme-court-election, (Date Of Access: 06.06 2025).
2 “Meksika’nın Yargı Sisteminde Köklü Değişim”, ANKASAM, https://www.ankasam.org/anka-analizler/meksikanin-yargi-sisteminde-koklu-degisim/, (Date Of Access: 06.06.2025).
3 “Mexico’s ruling party slated to control the newly elected Supreme Court, vote tallies Show”, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/mexico-judicial-election-supreme-court-6f80e045ca06d601f8602e7d68dfd502, (Date Of Access: 06.06.2025).
4 Same Place.
5 “Supreme Court throws out Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun industry”, The Hill, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5334416-supreme-court-mexico-gun-industry/, (Date Of Access: 06.06.2025).
