An independent and impartial judiciary is fundamental to the existence and operation of a liberal democracy. Focussing on Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, this comparative 2011 study explores four major issues affecting the judicial institution. These issues relate to the appointment and discipline of judges; judges and freedom of speech; the performance of non-judicial functions by judges; and judicial bias and recusal, and each is set within the context of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The essays highlight important episodes or controversies affecting members of the judiciary to illustrate relevant principles.
An in-depth study, originally published in 2006, of the careers and roles of judges in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and England, this book is based on original language materials and investigations of judges and judicial institutions in each country. On the basis of these detailed case studies, the book suggests factors that shape the character of the judiciary in different countries, focusing on issues such as women's careers and the relationship between judicial careers and politics. Bell's investigations offer lessons on issues which the English judiciary was having to confront in the period of reform at the time of this book's publication.
This book focuses on the decision-making processes in modern collegiate courts. Judges from some of the world s highest and most significant judicial bodies, both national and supranational, share their experiences and reflect on the challenges to which their joint judicial endeavour gives rise.
Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective collects, in one volume, a basic description of the most important principles and methods of analysis followed by the major Courts enforcing constitutional Bills of Rights around the world. The Courts include the Supreme Courts of Japan, India, Canada and the United States, the Constitutional Courts of Germany and Italy and the European Court of Human Rights. Each chapter is devoted to an analysis of the substantive jurisprudence developed by these Courts to determine whether a challenged law is constitutional or not, and is written by members of these Courts who have had a prior academic career. The book highlights the similarities and differences in the analytical methods used by these courts in determining whether or not someone's constitutional rights have been violated. Students and scholars of constitutional law and human rights, judges and advocates engaged in constitutional litigation will find the book a unique and valuable resource.
This book is the first application of the comparative method to the analysis of both the basic features of judicial process and their evolution and profound transformation in Europe and America. Cappelletti discusses the challenges facing the courts of justice and other adjudicatory agencies, and evaluates the solutions adopted by contemporary legal systems.
In this provocative work, Martin Shapiro proposes an original model for the study of courts, one that emphasizes the different modes of decision making and the multiple political roles that characterize the functioning of courts in different political systems.
This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.
This book examines the role played by domestic and international judges in the “flexibilization” of legal systems through general principles. It features revised papers that were presented at the Annual Conference of the European-American Consortium for Legal Education, held at the University of Parma, Italy, May 2014. This volume is organized in four sections, where the topic is mainly explored from a comparative perspective, and includes case studies. The first section covers theoretical issues. It offers an analysis of principles in shaping Dworkin’s theories about international law, a reflection on the role of procedural principles in defining the role of the judiciary, a view on the role of general principles in transnational judicial communication, a study on the recognition of international law from formal criteria to substantive principles, and an inquiry from the viewpoint of neo-constitutionalism. The second section contains studies on the role of general principles in selected legal systems, including International Law, European Union Law as well as Common Law systems. The third section features an analysis of select legal principles in a comparative perspective, with a particular focus on the comparison between European and American experiences. The fourth and last section explores selected principles in given areas of law, including the misuse of the lex specialis principle in the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the role of the judiciary in Poland as regards discrimination for sexual orientation, and the impact of the ECtHR case law on Italian criminal law with regard to the principle of legality. Overall, the book offers readers a thoughtful reflection on how the interpretation, application, and development of general principles of law by the judiciary contribute to the evolution of legal systems at both the domestic and international levels as well as further their reciprocal interactions.
This book examines the legal principle of judicial independence in comparative perspective with the goal of advancing a better understanding of the idea of an independent judiciary more generally. From an initial survey of judicial systems in different countries, it is clear that the understanding and practice of judicial independence take a variety of forms. Scholarly literature likewise provides a range of views on what judicial independence means, with scholars often advocating a preferred conception of a model court for achieving ‘true judicial independence’ as part of a rule of law system. This book seeks to reorient the prevailing approach to the study of judicial independence by better understanding how judicial independence operates within domestic legal systems in its institutional and legal dimensions. It asks how and why different conceptualisations of judicial independence emerge over time by comparing detailed case studies of courts in two legally pluralistic states, which share inheritances of British rule and the common law. By tracing the development of judicial independence in the legal systems of Malaysia and Pakistan from the time of independence to the present, the book offers an insightful comparison of how judicial independence took shape and developed in these countries over time. From this comparison, it suggests a number of contextual factors that can be seen to play a role in the evolution of judicial independence. The study draws upon the significant divergence observed in the case studies to propose a refined understanding of the idea of an independent judiciary, termed the ‘pragmatic and context-sensitive theory’, which may be seen in contradistinction to a universal approach. While judicial independence responds to the core need of judges to be perceived as an impartial third party by constructing formal and informal constraints on the judge and relationships between judges and others, its meaning in a legal system is inevitably shaped by the judicial role along with other features at the domestic level. The book concludes that the adaptive and pragmatic qualities of judicial independence supply it with relevance and legitimacy within a domestic legal system.
