This issue of the International Journal for Court Administration (Journal) is a transitional one. As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, that are intended to improve your reading experience and increase the appeal to the Journal’s diverse international audiences. The refreshing new look is partly also a consequence of our new partnership with Ubiquity Press, which has now taken over from Utrecht University as the journal’s international publisher. We are confident that our readers, sponsors and contributors alike will enjoy the benefits of the extensive reach and indexing services that our new publisher offers to the journal in numerous outlets around the world. Of course, we would like to thank the team at Utrecht University for its generous support over the previous 12 years, without which the Journal’s progression to the flagship international outlet in court administration would be difficult to imagine. We begin by extending our gratitude to Philip Langbroek, the Journal’s inaugural Managing Editor who, with the assistance of Markus Zimmer, IACA’s founding president and Journal Executive Editor, gave birth to the Journal and nursed it through its infancy. Philip has decided the time has come to pass the editorial management torch on to our new managing editors, although he will continue to serve as a Journal editor. Over time, Philip took the initiative to have the Journal’s contents peer-reviewed and recognized by the U.S. government’s Library of Congress and its contents listed in leading international scholarly databases, providing online access to its contents to a worldwide community. He also tirelessly promoted the Journal in international circles, building its reputation both among judicial and justice system professionals and academic and research communities in court management and administration. Overtime, he cultivated the interest of distinguished professionals, scholars and researchers in submitting their work for publication in the Journal. We owe him our collective thanks for his prodigious efforts and wish him well in his new endeavours. Next, you will see that there are some new additions to the Journal’s editorial board, so please allow us to introduce and welcome our two new (co)managing editors, Dr Gar Yein Ng from Buckingham University in the UK and Dr Tim Bunjevac, from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Gar Yein is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught comparative law in the fields of constitutional law and human rights. Gar Yein’s most recent publications cover issues of judicial skills, the training of judges and the role of judges vis-a-vis the legislator from a comparative perspective. Previously, she has been an independent researcher in areas such as court and justice management, public law and procedural law, particularly at the intersection between law and technology. Gar Yein has continued to
{"title":"A Journey of Transition","authors":"Tim Bunjevac, G. Ng, M. Zimmer, P. Langbroek","doi":"10.36745/ijca.311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.311","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the International Journal for Court Administration (Journal) is a transitional one. As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, that are intended to improve your reading experience and increase the appeal to the Journal’s diverse international audiences. The refreshing new look is partly also a consequence of our new partnership with Ubiquity Press, which has now taken over from Utrecht University as the journal’s international publisher. We are confident that our readers, sponsors and contributors alike will enjoy the benefits of the extensive reach and indexing services that our new publisher offers to the journal in numerous outlets around the world. Of course, we would like to thank the team at Utrecht University for its generous support over the previous 12 years, without which the Journal’s progression to the flagship international outlet in court administration would be difficult to imagine. We begin by extending our gratitude to Philip Langbroek, the Journal’s inaugural Managing Editor who, with the assistance of Markus Zimmer, IACA’s founding president and Journal Executive Editor, gave birth to the Journal and nursed it through its infancy. Philip has decided the time has come to pass the editorial management torch on to our new managing editors, although he will continue to serve as a Journal editor. Over time, Philip took the initiative to have the Journal’s contents peer-reviewed and recognized by the U.S. government’s Library of Congress and its contents listed in leading international scholarly databases, providing online access to its contents to a worldwide community. He also tirelessly promoted the Journal in international circles, building its reputation both among judicial and justice system professionals and academic and research communities in court management and administration. Overtime, he cultivated the interest of distinguished professionals, scholars and researchers in submitting their work for publication in the Journal. We owe him our collective thanks for his prodigious efforts and wish him well in his new endeavours. Next, you will see that there are some new additions to the Journal’s editorial board, so please allow us to introduce and welcome our two new (co)managing editors, Dr Gar Yein Ng from Buckingham University in the UK and Dr Tim Bunjevac, from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Gar Yein is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught comparative law in the fields of constitutional law and human rights. Gar Yein’s most recent publications cover issues of judicial skills, the training of judges and the role of judges vis-a-vis the legislator from a comparative perspective. Previously, she has been an independent researcher in areas such as court and justice management, public law and procedural law, particularly at the intersection between law and technology. Gar Yein has continued to","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":"45424618","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}
Over the last 25 years problem solving courts have developed internationally to provide a response to entrenched criminal justice related issues including addiction and mental health problems. These courts operate in adherence with the concept of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, which recognises the court and its officials as therapeutic agents, who work collaboratively to achieve the best possible outcomes for those appearing before the court. In an Irish context, problem solving courts have been in operation since 2001 when the Dublin Drug Treatment Court was established. This, however, remains the only problem solving court in operation within the Irish criminal justice system. This paper considers the wide ranging international literature on drug courts before casting a critical eye over the Dublin Drug Treatment Court, from its inception to the present day. It considers the workings of the court against the theoretical backdrop of Therapeutic Jurisprudence. This paper argues that while there seems to be a lack of overt engagement with Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles on the part of the Irish judiciary involved with the Dublin Drug Treatment Court, many tenets of the Court actually adhere to Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles, and the authors contend that calls for further empirical analysis. The paper builds on the works of Butler and Loughran et al., which has already provided an excellent grounding for any future studies on the Dublin Drug Treatment Court.
{"title":"Viewing the Dublin Drug Treatment Court through the Lens of Therapeutic Jurisprudence","authors":"P. Gavin, A. Kawalek","doi":"10.36745/ijca.298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.298","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 25 years problem solving courts have developed internationally to provide a response to entrenched criminal justice related issues including addiction and mental health problems. These courts operate in adherence with the concept of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, which recognises the court and its officials as therapeutic agents, who work collaboratively to achieve the best possible outcomes for those appearing before the court. In an Irish context, problem solving courts have been in operation since 2001 when the Dublin Drug Treatment Court was established. This, however, remains the only problem solving court in operation within the Irish criminal justice system. This paper considers the wide ranging international literature on drug courts before casting a critical eye over the Dublin Drug Treatment Court, from its inception to the present day. It considers the workings of the court against the theoretical backdrop of Therapeutic Jurisprudence. This paper argues that while there seems to be a lack of overt engagement with Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles on the part of the Irish judiciary involved with the Dublin Drug Treatment Court, many tenets of the Court actually adhere to Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles, and the authors contend that calls for further empirical analysis. The paper builds on the works of Butler and Loughran et al., which has already provided an excellent grounding for any future studies on the Dublin Drug Treatment Court.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43799480","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 purpose of this article is to explain the debate on the financial independence of the judiciary in France, and why this independence seems particularly necessary for the ordinary courts. The objective of this article is also to contribute to the definition of the financial independence of the judiciary and, starting with the French case, to show how it can be distinguished from two other concepts: financial autonomy and budgetary autonomy.
{"title":"The Financial Independence of the Judiciary in France","authors":"Caroline Expert-Foulquier","doi":"10.36745/ijca.300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.300","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to explain the debate on the financial independence of the judiciary in France, and why this independence seems particularly necessary for the ordinary courts. The objective of this article is also to contribute to the definition of the financial independence of the judiciary and, starting with the French case, to show how it can be distinguished from two other concepts: financial autonomy and budgetary autonomy.","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":"47226947","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}
International courts and tribunals hear and decide hundreds of cases per year, brought by supranational actors, member governments, national courts, and individual litigants. Their decisions are often complied with, and its powers and jurisdictions have grown these last decades. As international courts’ numbers and influence grow so too do challenges to their legitimacy. As such, it is interesting to raise the question of the legitimacy of international courts.
{"title":"Legitimacy and International Courts","authors":"Samira Allioui","doi":"10.36745/ijca.288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.288","url":null,"abstract":"International courts and tribunals hear and decide hundreds of cases per year, brought by supranational actors, member governments, national courts, and individual litigants. Their decisions are often complied with, and its powers and jurisdictions have grown these last decades. As international courts’ numbers and influence grow so too do challenges to their legitimacy. As such, it is interesting to raise the question of the legitimacy of international courts.","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":"48890134","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 Defensoria Publica da Uniao – Federal Public Defender’s Office is responsible for providing access to justice for vulnerable citizens. This agency needs to adopt good governance standards to operate lawfully and responsibly, be accountable, and achieve effective performance. Although socially important, governance in this type of organization has been little studied. This paper identifies and discusses standards of good governance and the relationships between its dimensions and variables at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The research includes the building and validation of a questionnaire to measure the perceptions of governance, which was used to conduct 14 in depth interviews at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The results show four factors of governance: Control and Accountability, Social Participation, Strategic Resources and Access to Justice. There were three main observations from this research 1. The public defenders and agency administration staff do not perceive control mechanisms to be part of governance, 2. There is little or no social participation in decision-making processes, and 3. Some working conditions and actions to develop the Public Defenders’ Office personnel are absent. This study contributes to the advancement of literature on the administration of justice, proposes a Governance Scale for the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and reflects on the relationship between performance, access to justice and other dimensions of governance. Publisher's note: this version of the publication was mistakenly typeset and published. The correct version can be found at http://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.317
{"title":"Governance in the Brazilian Federal Public Defender’s Office","authors":"Bernardo Oliveira Buta, T. Guimaraes, Luiz Akutsu","doi":"10.36745/ijca.273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.273","url":null,"abstract":"The Defensoria Publica da Uniao – Federal Public Defender’s Office is responsible for providing access to justice for vulnerable citizens. This agency needs to adopt good governance standards to operate lawfully and responsibly, be accountable, and achieve effective performance. Although socially important, governance in this type of organization has been little studied. This paper identifies and discusses standards of good governance and the relationships between its dimensions and variables at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The research includes the building and validation of a questionnaire to measure the perceptions of governance, which was used to conduct 14 in depth interviews at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The results show four factors of governance: Control and Accountability, Social Participation, Strategic Resources and Access to Justice. There were three main observations from this research 1. The public defenders and agency administration staff do not perceive control mechanisms to be part of governance, 2. There is little or no social participation in decision-making processes, and 3. Some working conditions and actions to develop the Public Defenders’ Office personnel are absent. This study contributes to the advancement of literature on the administration of justice, proposes a Governance Scale for the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and reflects on the relationship between performance, access to justice and other dimensions of governance. Publisher's note: this version of the publication was mistakenly typeset and published. The correct version can be found at http://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.317","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":"44012656","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}
With its career justices, Germany is often criticized for its lack of self-administration of the judiciary. This is because judges are, as a rule, appointed by the government—even if at times a parliamentary committee is involved in selecting candidates. In assessing the German system, however, it is often overlooked that career decisions are subject to tight judicial review. The article explains how this system developed. It provides an overview of the procedure, summarizes the criteria for judicial review, and details how according to constitutional requirements competing candidates have to be assessed and compared. The article also discusses leading cases of this system, reviewing their facts, and showing their application. As such, it is a small study of how case law can work in a continental legal system.
{"title":"Judicial Review of Judicial Appointments in Germany","authors":"J. Riedel","doi":"10.36745/ijca.296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.296","url":null,"abstract":"With its career justices, Germany is often criticized for its lack of self-administration of the judiciary. This is because judges are, as a rule, appointed by the government—even if at times a parliamentary committee is involved in selecting candidates. In assessing the German system, however, it is often overlooked that career decisions are subject to tight judicial review. The article explains how this system developed. It provides an overview of the procedure, summarizes the criteria for judicial review, and details how according to constitutional requirements competing candidates have to be assessed and compared. The article also discusses leading cases of this system, reviewing their facts, and showing their application. As such, it is a small study of how case law can work in a continental legal system.","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":"45840214","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 paper presents a judicial training program implemented in the State Court of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The training was structured in three phases and reached more than 400 judges and law clerks. The main goal was to teach basic and advanced skills in judicial administration, case management and leadership. The judicial training achieved success in several areas such as backlog reduction, improved caseflow management, and enhancing staff relationships.
{"title":"Developing Management Skills for Judges","authors":"C. H. B. Haddad","doi":"10.36745/ijca.312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.312","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents a judicial training program implemented in the State Court of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The training was structured in three phases and reached more than 400 judges and law clerks. The main goal was to teach basic and advanced skills in judicial administration, case management and leadership. The judicial training achieved success in several areas such as backlog reduction, improved caseflow management, and enhancing staff relationships.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41959695","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}
Gunnar Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, J. O. Sunde, Eric N. Waltenburg
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) approves of the role of law clerks assisting judges in their decision making but cautions against clerks replacing judges. In this article we put CCJE’s caution to a test and study law clerks at the Norwegian Supreme Court and the Borgarting and the Gulating courts of appeal, the country’s two largest courts of appeal. The general pattern for all three courts is that the pretext for hiring clerks changes from backlog problems to quality assurance, that clerks become organized in separate units, that the number of tasks performed by clerks increases, and that women constitute an outsized presence in the clerk units. The growth in clerks contributes to institutionalizing courts. We conclude that clerks perform tasks of the judges, that to some degree they replace judges, that clerks influence decision making, but that clerks have not become judges or make final decisions.
{"title":"From Backlogs to Quality Assurance. The Development of Law Clerk Units at Norwegian Courts","authors":"Gunnar Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, J. O. Sunde, Eric N. Waltenburg","doi":"10.36745/ijca.352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.352","url":null,"abstract":"The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) approves of the role of law clerks assisting judges in their decision making but cautions against clerks replacing judges. In this article we put CCJE’s caution to a test and study law clerks at the Norwegian Supreme Court and the Borgarting and the Gulating courts of appeal, the country’s two largest courts of appeal. The general pattern for all three courts is that the pretext for hiring clerks changes from backlog problems to quality assurance, that clerks become organized in separate units, that the number of tasks performed by clerks increases, and that women constitute an outsized presence in the clerk units. The growth in clerks contributes to institutionalizing courts. We conclude that clerks perform tasks of the judges, that to some degree they replace judges, that clerks influence decision making, but that clerks have not become judges or make final decisions.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69735465","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}
{"title":"Secretaries to Arbitral Tribunals: Judicial Assistants Rooted in Party Autonomy","authors":"J. Jensen","doi":"10.36745/ijca.356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.356","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69736182","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}
{"title":"Governance in the Brazilian Federal Public Defenders’ Office","authors":"Bernardo Oliveira Buta, T. Guimaraes, Luiz Akutsu","doi":"10.36745/ijca.317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.317","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69735433","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：