For more than a decade, we have witnessed an erosion of political freedoms and civil liberties across the world amidst a democratic backsliding toward autocracy, a system of government in which a single person (the autocrat) possesses absolute power to weaken institutions such as an independent judiciary that sustain the democratic system. At the same time, a surveillance-based economy and anti-democratic threats this poses have thrived. The coronavirus pandemic has enabled these trends, giving authoritarian leaders and surveillance capitalists the opportunity to make massive shifts and reprogramming of our sensibilities about privacy and civil liberties that may not be reversible. The author argues that judicial leaders and court administrators around the globe will need to readjust and adapt to the realities of governance in this new era of illiberalism. He recommends three key changes that courts and justice systems around the world may need to make to deliver justice in the face of the challenges: first, creating a new narrative, one that is less combative, one that aggressively eschews the past’s sharply polarized relationships between the judicial branch and the other two branches of government, and one that makes people partners instead of opponents; second, a new approach that puts major emphasis on good governance of the judicial branch, with a focus on competence and performance, an approach that mutes the more strident demands by judicial leaders for absolute judicial independence, coequal status of the judiciary with the executive and the legislative branches of government, and a perfect balance of power between them; finally, “going global” and linking up with international partners for global solidarity and collective action, thereby gaining influence and strength from international support back home.
{"title":"Illiberalism Enabled by the Coronavirus Pandemic: An Existential Threat to Judicial Independence","authors":"I. Keilitz","doi":"10.36745/ijca.339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.339","url":null,"abstract":"For more than a decade, we have witnessed an erosion of political freedoms and civil liberties across the world amidst a democratic backsliding toward autocracy, a system of government in which a single person (the autocrat) possesses absolute power to weaken institutions such as an independent judiciary that sustain the democratic system. At the same time, a surveillance-based economy and anti-democratic threats this poses have thrived. The coronavirus pandemic has enabled these trends, giving authoritarian leaders and surveillance capitalists the opportunity to make massive shifts and reprogramming of our sensibilities about privacy and civil liberties that may not be reversible. The author argues that judicial leaders and court administrators around the globe will need to readjust and adapt to the realities of governance in this new era of illiberalism. He recommends three key changes that courts and justice systems around the world may need to make to deliver justice in the face of the challenges: first, creating a new narrative, one that is less combative, one that aggressively eschews the past’s sharply polarized relationships between the judicial branch and the other two branches of government, and one that makes people partners instead of opponents; second, a new approach that puts major emphasis on good governance of the judicial branch, with a focus on competence and performance, an approach that mutes the more strident demands by judicial leaders for absolute judicial independence, coequal status of the judiciary with the executive and the legislative branches of government, and a perfect balance of power between them; finally, “going global” and linking up with international partners for global solidarity and collective action, thereby gaining influence and strength from international support back home.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42643656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We aim to determine the average efficiency levels of the Argentine Labor Courts and their individual behavior with respect to the average. We also seek to establish the determinants of the relative efficiency levels of those courts. In so doing, we estimate a Data Envelopment Analysis efficiency frontier, and then analyze the efficiency score drivers and the Judiciary career incentives. Our sample comprises 80 courts during the period 2006–2012. Our findings show high levels of efficiency on average. Nonetheless, there is 9–12 percent room for improvement in the output with the same inputs on average, whether considering variable or constant returns, respectively. The efficiency results take caseloads and backlog into account. Given that no measure of capital input is used, this is a short-run analysis. The analysis of the efficiency scores with respect to its determinants shows that more variables, outside our sample, can help explain the variance in the scores.
{"title":"Benchmarking Labor Courts: An Efficiency Frontier Analysis","authors":"Gustavo Ferro, Victoria Oubiña, C. Romero","doi":"10.36745/ijca.313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.313","url":null,"abstract":"We aim to determine the average efficiency levels of the Argentine Labor Courts and their individual behavior with respect to the average. We also seek to establish the determinants of the relative efficiency levels of those courts. In so doing, we estimate a Data Envelopment Analysis efficiency frontier, and then analyze the efficiency score drivers and the Judiciary career incentives. Our sample comprises 80 courts during the period 2006–2012. Our findings show high levels of efficiency on average. Nonetheless, there is 9–12 percent room for improvement in the output with the same inputs on average, whether considering variable or constant returns, respectively. The efficiency results take caseloads and backlog into account. Given that no measure of capital input is used, this is a short-run analysis. The analysis of the efficiency scores with respect to its determinants shows that more variables, outside our sample, can help explain the variance in the scores.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"11 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46857459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Bangladesh, the separation of the judiciary and its independence are constitutional mandates repeatedly declared in the judicial pronouncements; but no effective steps were taken by any governments before 2007. In order to fulfill the constitutional mandates and mandatory directions of the judgment of the Masdar Hossain case, the judiciary, particularly judicial magistrate courts were formally separated from the executive on 1st November 2007. More than 12 years have gone since the formal separation of the judiciary from the executive. Under these circumstances, this paper has been conducted to reveal whether all directions of Masdar Hossain case have been implemented and true separation of the judiciary from the executive or the legislature was established. From the analysis of the study, the findings as revealed are negative; therefore, the barriers have also been identified and explored in the paper.
{"title":"Separation of Judiciary in Bangladesh-Constitutional Mandates and Masdar Hossain Case’s Directions: A Post Separation Evaluation","authors":"M. Hossain","doi":"10.36745/ijca.310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.310","url":null,"abstract":"In Bangladesh, the separation of the judiciary and its independence are constitutional mandates repeatedly declared in the judicial pronouncements; but no effective steps were taken by any governments before 2007. In order to fulfill the constitutional mandates and mandatory directions of the judgment of the Masdar Hossain case, the judiciary, particularly judicial magistrate courts were formally separated from the executive on 1st November 2007. More than 12 years have gone since the formal separation of the judiciary from the executive. Under these circumstances, this paper has been conducted to reveal whether all directions of Masdar Hossain case have been implemented and true separation of the judiciary from the executive or the legislature was established. From the analysis of the study, the findings as revealed are negative; therefore, the barriers have also been identified and explored in the paper.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47086087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews the consequences of the invasion by military elements of the Russian Federation and its adjuncts, including pro-Russian separatist armed groups, 1 into Ukraine’s eastern regions or oblasts following Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. The review focuses on the adverse impact and ongoing trespass on Ukraine’s (i) criminal and, to a lesser extent, civil and administrative justice systems; (ii) police, prosecutorial and court institutions; (iii) access to justice by the Ukrainian citizens residing in the conflict zones of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and (iv) the long-term implications of restoring Ukraine’s justice framework to the conflict areas once the invading forces are routed. The authors summarize the efforts of the invasive forces to undermine the rule of law by establishing their own presumptive rogue constructs for processing matters ordinarily adjudicated by sovereign courts. These rogue constructs staffed by persons of unquestioning political loyalty to the Russian Federation and operating pursuant to substantive law and procedure based on Russian legal models. Keywords: justice in Ukraine’s eastern oblasts
{"title":"Justice in the East of Ukraine During the Ongoing Armed Conflict","authors":"R. Kuibida, L. Moroz, Roman Smaliuk","doi":"10.36745/ijca.341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.341","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the consequences of the invasion by military elements of the Russian Federation and its adjuncts, including pro-Russian separatist armed groups, 1 into Ukraine’s eastern regions or oblasts following Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. The review focuses on the adverse impact and ongoing trespass on Ukraine’s (i) criminal and, to a lesser extent, civil and administrative justice systems; (ii) police, prosecutorial and court institutions; (iii) access to justice by the Ukrainian citizens residing in the conflict zones of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and (iv) the long-term implications of restoring Ukraine’s justice framework to the conflict areas once the invading forces are routed. The authors summarize the efforts of the invasive forces to undermine the rule of law by establishing their own presumptive rogue constructs for processing matters ordinarily adjudicated by sovereign courts. These rogue constructs staffed by persons of unquestioning political loyalty to the Russian Federation and operating pursuant to substantive law and procedure based on Russian legal models. Keywords: justice in Ukraine’s eastern oblasts","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43075703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 2015 Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has set Nigeria on the path of adopting a more technology-driven criminal justice administration. Prior to its enactment after several years of consideration, there had been only episodic use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilities in criminal proceedings. This paper examines Nigeria’s Criminal Justice Administration (CJA) in light of the ACJA’s innovative provisions with a view to furthering the application of ICT facilities. It is hoped that ICT might be integrated throughout the CJA as it currently operates in Nigeria so as to promote the effective and efficient automated administration of criminal justice. In the new era of social distancing given the COVID-19 pandemic, such reform is submitted to be imperative.
{"title":"Utilising Technology in Making the Nigerian Administration of Criminal Justice Act Effective for Criminal Trials","authors":"Olubukola Olugasa","doi":"10.36745/ijca.332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.332","url":null,"abstract":"The 2015 Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has set Nigeria on the path of adopting a more technology-driven criminal justice administration. Prior to its enactment after several years of consideration, there had been only episodic use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilities in criminal proceedings. This paper examines Nigeria’s Criminal Justice Administration (CJA) in light of the ACJA’s innovative provisions with a view to furthering the application of ICT facilities. It is hoped that ICT might be integrated throughout the CJA as it currently operates in Nigeria so as to promote the effective and efficient automated administration of criminal justice. In the new era of social distancing given the COVID-19 pandemic, such reform is submitted to be imperative.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47905421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in courts of law. AI raises any number of questions for courts and judges. Importantly, what can AI do for the administration of justice, and what does that require? Complexity reduction is at the heart of court processes, irrespective of subject matter. Not all court work is complex custom work and routine processes have different requirements from complex customised work of the courts. It follows, that forms of information technology, including artificial intelligence, are also not the same for all cases. Which form of AI has already proven itself for these different processes? The work of courts and judges is governed by the standards of proper procedure, including Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so what does this mean for those working with AI? The Council of Europe has developed the Ethical Principles for the use of AI in the administration of justice. Can legal information be made more usable for AI?
本文探讨了人工智能(AI)在法庭上的应用。人工智能给法院和法官提出了许多问题。重要的是，人工智能可以为司法管理做些什么，这需要什么?降低复杂性是法庭程序的核心，无论其主题是什么。并非所有的法院工作都是复杂的定制工作，日常程序与法院的复杂定制工作有不同的要求。由此可见，包括人工智能在内的信息技术形式也并非适用于所有情况。哪种形式的人工智能已经在这些不同的过程中证明了自己?法院和法官的工作受到适当程序标准的约束，包括《欧洲人权公约》(European Convention on Human Rights)第6条，那么这对那些从事人工智能工作的人意味着什么?欧洲委员会制定了在司法管理中使用人工智能的道德原则。法律信息是否可以让人工智能更有用?
{"title":"Courts and Artificial Intelligence","authors":"A. Reiling","doi":"10.36745/ijca.343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in courts of law. AI raises any number of questions for courts and judges. Importantly, what can AI do for the administration of justice, and what does that require? Complexity reduction is at the heart of court processes, irrespective of subject matter. Not all court work is complex custom work and routine processes have different requirements from complex customised work of the courts. It follows, that forms of information technology, including artificial intelligence, are also not the same for all cases. Which form of AI has already proven itself for these different processes? The work of courts and judges is governed by the standards of proper procedure, including Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so what does this mean for those working with AI? The Council of Europe has developed the Ethical Principles for the use of AI in the administration of justice. Can legal information be made more usable for AI?","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44599829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines changes that occurred in the Polish lawmaking process associated with primary legislation (laws and amendments) affecting the court system. It uses the database of 126 laws adopted in the 1991–2019 timeframe (Ist to VIIIth term), that modified either (i) the law on common courts system or (ii) the law on the National Council of Judiciary – two legal acts constituting the backbone of the general jurisdiction courts system. A significant extension of our research is the coverage of RIAs and assessment of their quality. Analysis documents the transition from a rather consensual and deliberative law-making process to the partisan voting machine. That, in turn, enabled so-called ‘reforms’ of the Polish judiciary, implemented after 2015.
{"title":"Legislative Practice and the ‘Judiciary Reforms’ in Post-2015 Poland – Analysis of the law-Making Process","authors":"Kamil Joński, W. Rogowski","doi":"10.36745/ijca.315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.315","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines changes that occurred in the Polish lawmaking process associated with primary legislation (laws and amendments) affecting the court system. It uses the database of 126 laws adopted in the 1991–2019 timeframe (Ist to VIIIth term), that modified either (i) the law on common courts system or (ii) the law on the National Council of Judiciary – two legal acts constituting the backbone of the general jurisdiction courts system. A significant extension of our research is the coverage of RIAs and assessment of their quality. Analysis documents the transition from a rather consensual and deliberative law-making process to the partisan voting machine. That, in turn, enabled so-called ‘reforms’ of the Polish judiciary, implemented after 2015.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"11 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46425625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Richard Susskind’s most recent book sets forth a vision for the future role of online courts in resolving civil disputes and why they will have a profound effect on the manner in which processing of disagreements and claims under law is likely to occur. The benefits will compound as the traditional processes that comprise the oftentimes cumbersome, time-intensive and costly framework of conventional courts give way to more efficient, direct, convenient, and affordable online solutions. Susskind’s years of advocacy for automated solutions in court system operations and functions are manifest in how he judiciously analyzes and responds to the myriad objections to his vision. He alerts his readers to the perils of overlooking the human elements of dispute resolution, highlighting the challenges to online developers and the risks they pose for the dispute resolution field. He argues persuasively that because more than half of the world’s population lacks meaningful access to the rule of law and administration of justice, our challenge is to leverage the potential of technology and the Internet to broaden that access by creating and deploying functional online courts worldwide.
{"title":"Review of Online Courts and the Future of Justice by Richard Susskind (Oxford University Press, 2019)","authors":"C. Rule","doi":"10.36745/ijca.346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.346","url":null,"abstract":"Richard Susskind’s most recent book sets forth a vision for the future role of online courts in resolving civil disputes and why they will have a profound effect on the manner in which processing of disagreements and claims under law is likely to occur. The benefits will compound as the traditional processes that comprise the oftentimes cumbersome, time-intensive and costly framework of conventional courts give way to more efficient, direct, convenient, and affordable online solutions. Susskind’s years of advocacy for automated solutions in court system operations and functions are manifest in how he judiciously analyzes and responds to the myriad objections to his vision. He alerts his readers to the perils of overlooking the human elements of dispute resolution, highlighting the challenges to online developers and the risks they pose for the dispute resolution field. He argues persuasively that because more than half of the world’s population lacks meaningful access to the rule of law and administration of justice, our challenge is to leverage the potential of technology and the Internet to broaden that access by creating and deploying functional online courts worldwide.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45182005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-23DOI: 10.1515/9783110616385-202
K. Laster, A. Wallace
{"title":"Foreword by the Editors","authors":"K. Laster, A. Wallace","doi":"10.1515/9783110616385-202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616385-202","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/9783110616385-202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45421109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Twitter and other social media in the judiciary have been a topic in this magazine before. Judith C. Gibson, for example, dealt with “The future of judges in a social media world” in the October 2016 issue. This short article aims to illustrate the problem of the use of social media in the courtroom using a small, recent practical example from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
{"title":"Twitter and SMS from the Courtroom","authors":"T. Stadelmann","doi":"10.36745/ijca.306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.306","url":null,"abstract":"Twitter and other social media in the judiciary have been a topic in this magazine before. Judith C. Gibson, for example, dealt with “The future of judges in a social media world” in the October 2016 issue. This short article aims to illustrate the problem of the use of social media in the courtroom using a small, recent practical example from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43117558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","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：