Many scholars predict that European integration will foster adversarial legalism in Europe. In this article, I empirically assess the Eurolegalism thesis by examining EU regulatory mandates in the competition and securities fields, two policy areas where adversarial legalism is seen as most likely to develop. I argue that the diffusion of adversarial legalism to Europe has faced significant political opposition in the EU policymaking process which has curtailed the use of private enforcement mandates in EU secondary legislation. European policymakers have relied more on administrative enforcement through public regulatory agencies, a mode of policy implementation closer to bureaucratic legalism. In practice, public authorities play the primary enforcement role and private litigation serves the narrower function of compensation following public enforcement actions. Drawing from institutionalist theory, I identify several factors that have encouraged the development of bureaucratic rather than adversarial styles of European legalism, especially member states' commitments to procedural subsidiarity, the negative feedback effects from the US experience with entrepreneurial litigation, and the stickiness of European legal and bureaucratic traditions.
{"title":"Legalism without adversarialism?: Bureaucratic legalism and the politics of regulatory implementation in the European Union","authors":"Chase Foster","doi":"10.1111/rego.12524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12524","url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars predict that European integration will foster adversarial legalism in Europe. In this article, I empirically assess the Eurolegalism thesis by examining EU regulatory mandates in the competition and securities fields, two policy areas where adversarial legalism is seen as most likely to develop. I argue that the diffusion of adversarial legalism to Europe has faced significant political opposition in the EU policymaking process which has curtailed the use of private enforcement mandates in EU secondary legislation. European policymakers have relied more on administrative enforcement through public regulatory agencies, a mode of policy implementation closer to bureaucratic legalism. In practice, public authorities play the primary enforcement role and private litigation serves the narrower function of compensation following public enforcement actions. Drawing from institutionalist theory, I identify several factors that have encouraged the development of bureaucratic rather than adversarial styles of European legalism, especially member states' commitments to procedural subsidiarity, the negative feedback effects from the US experience with entrepreneurial litigation, and the stickiness of European legal and bureaucratic traditions.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mikko Rajavuori, Annalisa Savaresi, Harro van Asselt
The debate on corporate climate accountability has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Several countries, particularly in the Global North, have adopted mandatory human rights and/or environmental due diligence legislation. At the same time, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings are helping to shape the contours of corporate climate accountability. This article considers how litigation against corporations and due diligence legislation interact, and thereby help develop and strengthen corporate climate accountability. While the practice in this area is still limited, there is scope to reflect on early developments and how they may influence both future climate litigation as well as ongoing and future law-making on due diligence. We first review recent developments in climate litigation against corporations, focusing on the extent to which they rely on climate due diligence obligations. We then survey existing and proposed due diligence legislation, examining the extent to which it addresses corporate climate accountability. Finally, we identify scenarios of how due diligence legislation and climate litigation may interact and possibly converge to strengthen corporate climate accountability. We furthermore identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research.
{"title":"Mandatory due diligence laws and climate change litigation: Bridging the corporate climate accountability gap?","authors":"Mikko Rajavuori, Annalisa Savaresi, Harro van Asselt","doi":"10.1111/rego.12518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12518","url":null,"abstract":"The debate on corporate climate accountability has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Several countries, particularly in the Global North, have adopted mandatory human rights and/or environmental due diligence legislation. At the same time, judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings are helping to shape the contours of corporate climate accountability. This article considers how litigation against corporations and due diligence legislation interact, and thereby help develop and strengthen corporate climate accountability. While the practice in this area is still limited, there is scope to reflect on early developments and how they may influence both future climate litigation as well as ongoing and future law-making on due diligence. We first review recent developments in climate litigation against corporations, focusing on the extent to which they rely on climate due diligence obligations. We then survey existing and proposed due diligence legislation, examining the extent to which it addresses corporate climate accountability. Finally, we identify scenarios of how due diligence legislation and climate litigation may interact and possibly converge to strengthen corporate climate accountability. We furthermore identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Regulatory discretion is a central concept in the study of the regulatory state. Yet little attention has been paid to the origins of regulatory discretion, and how it varies across polities, policy areas, and over time. This paper presents a conceptualization of regulatory discretion that draws on three dimensions: delegation, content, and procedure. It argues that to measure regulatory discretion in legislation, we need to identify provisions that delegate regulatory powers to governments and then examine the extent to which exercising regulatory powers is constrained. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, this paper presents descriptive findings of the dynamics of regulatory discretion in the United Kingdom between 1900 and 2020. The findings portray how discretion has been constrained and formalized over the years through the content of regulations, while it has still retained high levels of flexibility in exercising regulatory powers. In doing so, the findings illustrate the rise of the British regulatory state through its legislative language.
{"title":"Conceptualization and measurement of regulatory discretion: Text analysis of 120 years of British legislation","authors":"Nir Kosti","doi":"10.1111/rego.12516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12516","url":null,"abstract":"Regulatory discretion is a central concept in the study of the regulatory state. Yet little attention has been paid to the origins of regulatory discretion, and how it varies across polities, policy areas, and over time. This paper presents a conceptualization of regulatory discretion that draws on three dimensions: delegation, content, and procedure. It argues that to measure regulatory discretion in legislation, we need to identify provisions that delegate regulatory powers to governments and then examine the extent to which exercising regulatory powers is constrained. Using Natural Language Processing techniques, this paper presents descriptive findings of the dynamics of regulatory discretion in the United Kingdom between 1900 and 2020. The findings portray how discretion has been constrained and formalized over the years through the content of regulations, while it has still retained high levels of flexibility in exercising regulatory powers. In doing so, the findings illustrate the rise of the British regulatory state through its legislative language.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Celebrity is a form of policy influence that can occur under distinctive circumstances. This paper draws on the regulatory/policy capture literature to develop a model of celebrity capture that explains how interest groups can affect policy in the absence of economic clout or constituency mobilization. We posit that the likelihood of celebrity capture increases when several factors align: (1) a context open to change; (2) reduced oversight in decisionmaking processes; (3) organizations that have credibility and a halo effect due to their celebrity status; and (4) an uncoordinated sector with weak intermediary organizations. The analysis applies process tracing to account for the success of one celebrity-founded and celebrity-led organization, WE Charity, in shaping the design and being awarded sole-source implementation of the CAD $543 million Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program during COVID-19. The CSSG, which proposed to pay up to 100,000 students to “volunteer” in nonprofits over the course of a summer, quickly failed and became a public ethical scandal.
{"title":"Under the influence: The celebrity factor in policy capture","authors":"Christopher N. Dougherty, Susan D. Phillips","doi":"10.1111/rego.12517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12517","url":null,"abstract":"Celebrity is a form of policy influence that can occur under distinctive circumstances. This paper draws on the regulatory/policy capture literature to develop a model of celebrity capture that explains how interest groups can affect policy in the absence of economic clout or constituency mobilization. We posit that the likelihood of celebrity capture increases when several factors align: (1) a context open to change; (2) reduced oversight in decisionmaking processes; (3) organizations that have credibility and a halo effect due to their celebrity status; and (4) an uncoordinated sector with weak intermediary organizations. The analysis applies process tracing to account for the success of one celebrity-founded and celebrity-led organization, WE Charity, in shaping the design and being awarded sole-source implementation of the CAD $543 million Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program during COVID-19. The CSSG, which proposed to pay up to 100,000 students to “volunteer” in nonprofits over the course of a summer, quickly failed and became a public ethical scandal.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lobbying has never been as sophisticated, complex, and well-funded as it is today. Significantly, interest group strategies are more advanced than the regulatory practices meant to contain them. This raises concerns about states' ability to resist unwanted influence from interest groups. How can government regulations be brought up to speed to address 21st-century lobbying practices? We argue that there are three critical dimensions to focus on: (i) regulatory consolidation; (ii) system interoperability; and (iii) open-source implementation. These aspects address the need for better coordination within jurisdictions, cooperation across systems, and effective use of public resources. Developing future regulations along these lines can help policy to leap-ahead interest groups; while limiting unwanted adverse effects on states' administrative efficiency and political legitimacy. In doing so, we provide a constructive roadmap forward in the field, linking common discussions between researchers, policymakers, and policy stakeholders.
{"title":"Regulating government affairs: Integrating lobbying research and policy concerns","authors":"David Coen, Alexander Katsaitis, Matia Vannoni","doi":"10.1111/rego.12515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12515","url":null,"abstract":"Lobbying has never been as sophisticated, complex, and well-funded as it is today. Significantly, interest group strategies are more advanced than the regulatory practices meant to contain them. This raises concerns about states' ability to resist unwanted influence from interest groups. How can government regulations be brought up to speed to address 21st-century lobbying practices? We argue that there are three critical dimensions to focus on: (i) regulatory consolidation; (ii) system interoperability; and (iii) open-source implementation. These aspects address the need for better coordination within jurisdictions, cooperation across systems, and effective use of public resources. Developing future regulations along these lines can help policy to leap-ahead interest groups; while limiting unwanted adverse effects on states' administrative efficiency and political legitimacy. In doing so, we provide a constructive roadmap forward in the field, linking common discussions between researchers, policymakers, and policy stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Even though workplace conditions worldwide are subject to local and international laws, labor conditions in global supply chains have continuously raised human rights concerns. In response to societal pressure, multinationals have taken on a certain degree of responsibility regarding workplace conditions in supplier factories, notably by adopting codes of conduct. Investigating the impact of this self-regulatory policy, scholars have examined whether and how codes shape labor conditions at the production level, but the results of their empirical studies diverge and sometimes contradict. To bring clarity to the field and gain an overarching understanding of the impact of codes, this literature review analyzes the question of their effectiveness as examined in 33 scientific papers gathered via a systematic selection of empirical studies. The review shows that supplier codes are not deemed unanimously and evenly effective by scholars and often fail to improve labor conditions. However, a range of factors are identified that facilitate the implementation of codes and ensure its effectiveness. This article develops a taxonomy of these factors and intends to contribute to understanding codes' decoupling and recoupling processes by investigating the gap between codes provisions and their intended outcome: the improvement of labor practices in global supply chains.
{"title":"The portrayal of effectiveness of supplier codes of conduct in improving labor conditions in global supply chains: A systematic review of the literature","authors":"Sarah Vandenbroucke","doi":"10.1111/rego.12514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12514","url":null,"abstract":"Even though workplace conditions worldwide are subject to local and international laws, labor conditions in global supply chains have continuously raised human rights concerns. In response to societal pressure, multinationals have taken on a certain degree of responsibility regarding workplace conditions in supplier factories, notably by adopting codes of conduct. Investigating the impact of this self-regulatory policy, scholars have examined whether and how codes shape labor conditions at the production level, but the results of their empirical studies diverge and sometimes contradict. To bring clarity to the field and gain an overarching understanding of the impact of codes, this literature review analyzes the question of their effectiveness as examined in 33 scientific papers gathered via a systematic selection of empirical studies. The review shows that supplier codes are not deemed unanimously and evenly effective by scholars and often fail to improve labor conditions. However, a range of factors are identified that facilitate the implementation of codes and ensure its effectiveness. This article develops a taxonomy of these factors and intends to contribute to understanding codes' decoupling and recoupling processes by investigating the gap between codes provisions and their intended outcome: the improvement of labor practices in global supply chains.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In its AI Act, the European Union chose to understand trustworthiness of AI in terms of the acceptability of its risks. Based on a narrative systematic literature review on institutional trust and AI in the public sector, this article argues that the EU adopted a simplistic conceptualization of trust and is overselling its regulatory ambition. The paper begins by reconstructing the conflation of “trustworthiness” with “acceptability” in the AI Act. It continues by developing a prescriptive set of variables for reviewing trust research in the context of AI. The paper then uses those variables for a narrative review of prior research on trust and trustworthiness in AI in the public sector. Finally, it relates the findings of the review to the EU's AI policy. Its prospects to successfully engineer citizen's trust are uncertain. There remains a threat of misalignment between levels of actual trust and the trustworthiness of applied AI.
{"title":"Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk","authors":"Johann Laux, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt","doi":"10.1111/rego.12512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12512","url":null,"abstract":"In its AI Act, the European Union chose to understand trustworthiness of AI in terms of the acceptability of its risks. Based on a narrative systematic literature review on institutional trust and AI in the public sector, this article argues that the EU adopted a simplistic conceptualization of trust and is overselling its regulatory ambition. The paper begins by reconstructing the conflation of “trustworthiness” with “acceptability” in the AI Act. It continues by developing a prescriptive set of variables for reviewing trust research in the context of AI. The paper then uses those variables for a narrative review of prior research on trust and trustworthiness in AI in the public sector. Finally, it relates the findings of the review to the EU's AI policy. Its prospects to successfully engineer citizen's trust are uncertain. There remains a threat of misalignment between levels of actual trust and the trustworthiness of applied AI.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens' compliance with government preventive measures was one of the top policy priorities for governments worldwide. This study engages with socio-legal and psychological theories on compliance and proposes an analytical framework to explore the role of different psychological factors on individual-level compliance during global health crises. Using the results of three national surveys, we argue that various negative emotional states, perceptions of the ongoing crisis, and of the institutional settings are major factors influencing individual compliance across countries. Most importantly, while increased panic, anxiety, and sadness lead to higher compliance, rising anger, loneliness, and impatience decrease compliance levels. Notably, perceptions of the COVID-19 crisis—especially health concerns and a worsening financial situation—tend to elicit anger among citizens across countries, thereby further hampering their obedience with pandemic regulations. Furthermore, perceptions of public institutions also influence individual compliance. Overall, in order to ensure compliance, we suggest that policymakers and those implementing government measures take individual psychological factors into account both within and beyond the public crisis context.
{"title":"Emotions, crisis, and institutions: Explaining compliance with COVID-19 regulations","authors":"Danqi Guo, Sabrina Habich-Sobiegalla, Genia Kostka","doi":"10.1111/rego.12509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12509","url":null,"abstract":"Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens' compliance with government preventive measures was one of the top policy priorities for governments worldwide. This study engages with socio-legal and psychological theories on compliance and proposes an analytical framework to explore the role of different psychological factors on individual-level compliance during global health crises. Using the results of three national surveys, we argue that various negative emotional states, perceptions of the ongoing crisis, and of the institutional settings are major factors influencing individual compliance across countries. Most importantly, while increased panic, anxiety, and sadness lead to higher compliance, rising anger, loneliness, and impatience decrease compliance levels. Notably, perceptions of the COVID-19 crisis—especially health concerns and a worsening financial situation—tend to elicit anger among citizens across countries, thereby further hampering their obedience with pandemic regulations. Furthermore, perceptions of public institutions also influence individual compliance. Overall, in order to ensure compliance, we suggest that policymakers and those implementing government measures take individual psychological factors into account both within and beyond the public crisis context.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeth R. DeSombre, Jette Steen Knudsen, Molly Elder
Focusing on 23 greening measures, this paper systematically compares the greening efforts of the busiest container and cargo ports in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). We move beyond accounts for general environmental differences between the EU and the US to examine how specific environmental decisions are shaped by the effects of regulatory characteristics in each region. We identify systematic variation in number and type of port greening measures adopted in the two regions. We demonstrate that differences in the number and type of measures adopted reflect the level of policy making with local policy making playing a more important role in the US compared to the EU, thus proposing a pathway through which the form of regulatory approach could influence content and extent of regulation. The EU adopts regulation that is broader in scope while US ports are more likely to address problems affecting local populations.
{"title":"Regulation from above or below: Port greening measures in the European Union and the United States","authors":"Elizabeth R. DeSombre, Jette Steen Knudsen, Molly Elder","doi":"10.1111/rego.12510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12510","url":null,"abstract":"Focusing on 23 greening measures, this paper systematically compares the greening efforts of the busiest container and cargo ports in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). We move beyond accounts for general environmental differences between the EU and the US to examine how specific environmental decisions are shaped by the effects of regulatory characteristics in each region. We identify systematic variation in number and type of port greening measures adopted in the two regions. We demonstrate that differences in the number and type of measures adopted reflect the level of policy making with local policy making playing a more important role in the US compared to the EU, thus proposing a pathway through which the form of regulatory approach could influence content and extent of regulation. The EU adopts regulation that is broader in scope while US ports are more likely to address problems affecting local populations.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50165471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katarína Šipulová, Samuel Spáč, David Kosař, Tereza Papoušková, Viktor Derka
The aim of this article is to introduce a novel view on how to evaluate the share of power held by judges in judicial governance. Its contribution to court administration and the regulation of judges is three-fold. First, it provides a novel empirically tested conceptualization of judicial governance that includes 60 competences grouped into eight dimensions (ranging from selection and education of judges to case allocation and publication of judicial decisions). Second, it proposes a new Judicial Self-Governance (JSG) Index that measures how much power domestic judges hold in these eight dimensions of judicial governance. Third, by applying the JSG Index to the longitudinal data for Germany, Italy, Czechia, and Slovakia this article demonstrates that the Judicial Council model is not the only institutional model of judicial governance leading to the empowerment of judges. This means that judges can hold many powers without the existence of judicial councils and even in the Ministry of Justice model.
{"title":"Judicial Self-Governance Index: Towards better understanding of the role of judges in governing the judiciary.","authors":"Katarína Šipulová, Samuel Spáč, David Kosař, Tereza Papoušková, Viktor Derka","doi":"10.1111/rego.12453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12453","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this article is to introduce a novel view on how to evaluate the share of power held by judges in judicial governance. Its contribution to court administration and the regulation of judges is three-fold. First, it provides a novel empirically tested conceptualization of judicial governance that includes 60 competences grouped into eight dimensions (ranging from selection and education of judges to case allocation and publication of judicial decisions). Second, it proposes a new Judicial Self-Governance (JSG) Index that measures how much power domestic judges hold in these eight dimensions of judicial governance. Third, by applying the JSG Index to the longitudinal data for Germany, Italy, Czechia, and Slovakia this article demonstrates that the Judicial Council model is not the only institutional model of judicial governance leading to the empowerment of judges. This means that judges can hold many powers without the existence of judicial councils and even in the Ministry of Justice model.</p>","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078789/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9264535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：