Backsliding into Judicial Oligarchy? The Cautionary Tale of Georgia’s Failed Judicial Reforms, Informal Judicial Networks and Limited Access to Leadership Positions

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Review of Central and East European Law Pub Date : 2022-06-28 DOI:10.1163/15730352-bja10067
N. Tsereteli
{"title":"Backsliding into Judicial Oligarchy? The Cautionary Tale of Georgia’s Failed Judicial Reforms, Informal Judicial Networks and Limited Access to Leadership Positions","authors":"N. Tsereteli","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article investigates the formal and informal factors behind the persistence of judicial oligarchies in post-communist countries despite large-scale reforms. This case study on Georgia reveals that formal positions of power in these judiciaries can be monopolized by a close-knit group, with a handful of influential judges (i.e. judicial oligarchs) at the top of its hierarchical structure. Drawing on in-depth interviews with sitting as well as former judges and other stakeholders of reform processes, the article attributes the failure to dismantle the rule of judicial oligarchs at least partly to legislative flaws and loopholes. More importantly, it warns about the reliance of judicial oligarchs on informal rules and practices to undermine formal rules and procedures meant to facilitate the meaningful participation of all judges in governing the judiciary. It uncovers informal mechanisms allowing the network of powerful judges to suppress the emergence of competing judicial networks and cement itself into leadership positions. Finally, the article reflects on the implications of these findings for designing and implementing judicial reforms in Georgia and beyond.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Central and East European Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article investigates the formal and informal factors behind the persistence of judicial oligarchies in post-communist countries despite large-scale reforms. This case study on Georgia reveals that formal positions of power in these judiciaries can be monopolized by a close-knit group, with a handful of influential judges (i.e. judicial oligarchs) at the top of its hierarchical structure. Drawing on in-depth interviews with sitting as well as former judges and other stakeholders of reform processes, the article attributes the failure to dismantle the rule of judicial oligarchs at least partly to legislative flaws and loopholes. More importantly, it warns about the reliance of judicial oligarchs on informal rules and practices to undermine formal rules and procedures meant to facilitate the meaningful participation of all judges in governing the judiciary. It uncovers informal mechanisms allowing the network of powerful judges to suppress the emergence of competing judicial networks and cement itself into leadership positions. Finally, the article reflects on the implications of these findings for designing and implementing judicial reforms in Georgia and beyond.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
退回到司法寡头?格鲁吉亚失败的司法改革、非正式的司法网络和获得领导职位的机会有限的警示故事
本文考察了后共产主义国家尽管进行了大规模改革,但司法寡头政治持续存在的正式和非正式因素。对格鲁吉亚的案例研究表明,这些司法机构的正式权力职位可能被一个关系密切的集团垄断,少数有影响力的法官(即司法寡头)处于其等级结构的顶端。通过对现任和前任法官以及改革进程的其他利益相关者的深入采访,文章将未能解除司法寡头统治的原因至少部分归咎于立法缺陷和漏洞。更重要的是,报告警告说,司法寡头依赖非正式规则和做法,破坏旨在促进所有法官有意义地参与管理司法的正式规则和程序。它揭示了非正式的机制,允许强大的法官网络压制竞争性司法网络的出现,并巩固自己的领导地位。最后,本文反映了这些发现对格鲁吉亚及其他地区设计和实施司法改革的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Review of Central and East European Law critically examines issues of legal doctrine and practice in the CIS and CEE regions. An important aspect of this is, for example, the harmonization of legal principles and rules; another facet is the legal impact of the intertwining of domestic economies, on the one hand, with regional economies and the processes of international trade and investment on the other. The Review offers a forum for discussion of topical questions of public and private law. The Review encourages comparative research; it is hoped that, in this way, additional insights in legal developments can be communicated to those interested in questions, not only of law, but also of politics, economics, and of society of the CIS and CEE countries.
期刊最新文献
Is Transparency Enough? Informal Governance Networks and the Selection Process of a Georgian Judge to the European Court of Human Rights Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses in Standard Terms and Conditions of International Commercial Contracts under Turkish Law Multiplication of Extraordinary Appeal Measures in Polish Criminal Proceedings: A Guarantee of Justice or Erosion of the Principle of Legal Certainty? Balancing Initial Copyright Ownership in Czech and Slovak Private International Law Accented Universality: Exploring Accountability as a Non-Translatable Concept in Central Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1