{"title":"Consensus Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Judging and Judicial Deliberations","authors":"Benjamin Bricker","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1856738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article seeks to shed new light on how judicial consensus is formed. Through a multi-country series of 17 interviews with judges and clerks in six different courts – both ordinary and constitutional – across Europe, I investigate how judges negotiate and bargain to create final outcomes, and how the deliberative process itself may help to shape outcomes. Interview responses suggest two factors affect the probability that judges will be able to reach consensus outcomes: the complexity of the case and the background of the case rapporteur. These interview responses are then paired with an original dataset of case outcomes from seven European constitutional courts. The dataset of court outcomes suggests that the complexity of the case matters greatly, though limited testing shows judicial backgrounds do not appear to be a significant factor in the creation of consensus.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":"25 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1856738","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract This article seeks to shed new light on how judicial consensus is formed. Through a multi-country series of 17 interviews with judges and clerks in six different courts – both ordinary and constitutional – across Europe, I investigate how judges negotiate and bargain to create final outcomes, and how the deliberative process itself may help to shape outcomes. Interview responses suggest two factors affect the probability that judges will be able to reach consensus outcomes: the complexity of the case and the background of the case rapporteur. These interview responses are then paired with an original dataset of case outcomes from seven European constitutional courts. The dataset of court outcomes suggests that the complexity of the case matters greatly, though limited testing shows judicial backgrounds do not appear to be a significant factor in the creation of consensus.
期刊介绍：
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
