Anne-Marie Slaughter has described the 'new world order' as characterized by some 'conceptual shifts', including an increasing cooperation of domestic courts across nation-state boundaries. The cross-jurisdictional referencing of legal norms and decisions, as Slaughter holds, would lead into a 'global community of courts'. This article takes issue with that observation. The authors argue that, for such a community to emerge, cross-referencing would need to be followed by an effective transmission of meaning from one (legal) context to another. Following recent insights in the field of International Relations norm research, however, we can expect such meanings to be contested -- in particular, when different cultural repertoires operate on either side of the interactive processes. Therefore, a need for translation ensues (i.e., a translation of constitutional norms or concepts from one legal order into another). The conditions of a 'global community of courts' are thus not easily met. In this respect, the aim of the article is to put Slaughter's thesis to an empirical test. Adapted from the source document.