比较欧洲国家的法官和法院工作人员人数1

M. Fabri
{"title":"比较欧洲国家的法官和法院工作人员人数1","authors":"M. Fabri","doi":"10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper raises some methodological issues when a comparative approach is used to compare the number of judges and court personnel in European judiciaries. Data come from the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe, which also is the main source for the European Union Justice Scoreboard. Some proposals are made to improve the collection of data and, then, increasing their comparability. The paper shows how an assessment on the number of judges and court personnel can benefit from a cross country comparative perspective, but only if quantitative analysis come together with in-depth qualitative studies.","PeriodicalId":43893,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","volume":"26 1","pages":"19 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the number of judges and court staff across European countries1\",\"authors\":\"M. Fabri\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper raises some methodological issues when a comparative approach is used to compare the number of judges and court personnel in European judiciaries. Data come from the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe, which also is the main source for the European Union Justice Scoreboard. Some proposals are made to improve the collection of data and, then, increasing their comparability. The paper shows how an assessment on the number of judges and court personnel can benefit from a cross country comparative perspective, but only if quantitative analysis come together with in-depth qualitative studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of the Legal Profession\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"19 - 5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of the Legal Profession\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2018.1515741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文提出了一些方法论问题,当使用比较方法来比较欧洲司法机构的法官和法院工作人员的数量时。数据来自欧洲委员会司法效率委员会,该委员会也是欧盟司法记分牌的主要来源。提出了一些建议,以改进数据的收集,从而提高数据的可比性。该文件表明,从跨国比较的角度对法官和法院工作人员的数量进行评估可以从中受益,但前提是定量分析与深入的定性研究相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing the number of judges and court staff across European countries1
ABSTRACT This paper raises some methodological issues when a comparative approach is used to compare the number of judges and court personnel in European judiciaries. Data come from the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe, which also is the main source for the European Union Justice Scoreboard. Some proposals are made to improve the collection of data and, then, increasing their comparability. The paper shows how an assessment on the number of judges and court personnel can benefit from a cross country comparative perspective, but only if quantitative analysis come together with in-depth qualitative studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Silent boundaries: exploring the limits of legal confidentiality in Poland New professional spaces and trajectories: tracing the evolution of legal professionals – introduction to special issue The authority of the elders or the colonisers? Customary law and culture – which legal skills? Assessing law students in a GenAI world to create knowledgeable future lawyers Navigating the legal landscape: large language models and the hesitancy of legal professionals
×
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