1\. Introduction 5 2\. The Transplant Approach and the Andean Puzzles 5 2.1
Aims and Limitations of the Transplant Approach 5 2.2 Three Andean Puzzles 7
3\. Epistemic Communities and Advocacy Coalitions: A Framework 9 4\. The
Andean-European Network 11 4.1 Crafting a Policy Core for the Network 11 4.2
Diffusing the Network’s Policy Program 14 5\. Conditions for the Action of
Networks: Using Windows of Opportunities 14 6\. Contesting the Governments’
Control over the Integration Process 16 6.1 The Case of the Chilean Parliament
16 6.2 Colombia and its Supreme Court 16 7\. Expanding the Network: Bringing
the Judges in 18 8\. Conclusion 20 Literature 22Legal transplants have traditionally been believed to be the product of reason
and informed decision-making that follow arduous deliberations and bargaining
between lawmakers. This paper argues that some major legal transformations can
be better explained with the help of networks. It delves into the history of
the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and asks who got to decide
the major questions in regard to the institutional design of the court. I
argue that contrary to dominant assumptions, consultants and think tanks play
a decisive role in the shaping of legal transplants. They are the ones that
decide which model to follow. They get to choose participants in relevant
working groups and it is them who shape the final proposal that will be voted
by the lawmaker. As the complexity of the topic increases, professional
networks can use technical discourse that makes scrutiny unlikely. The
research shows that in case of Andean regional integration, the personal
background of consultant is also very relevant, because it determines what
models will be considered for eventual benchmarking. However, the mere
existence of networks is not enough for producing legal change; a window of
opportunity is a necessary condition
