司法服务委员会和妇女的任命:对它来说意义重大

Tabeth Masengu
{"title":"司法服务委员会和妇女的任命:对它来说意义重大","authors":"Tabeth Masengu","doi":"10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in South Africa was established in response to a pre-democratic era appointment system rich in patronage, opaqueness, and invariably, inequality. The use of judicial appointment bodies has been recommended by the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, as a method of preserving judicial independence. However, not much research has been conducted into whether there is an absence of patronage and power dynamics when judicial appointment bodies replace executive type of appointments. This paper suggests that the introduction of appointment bodies does not eradicate privilege and power dynamics as some might believe. Rather, it creates a different type of dynamic that can be harmful for women.","PeriodicalId":43893,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Judicial Service Commission and the appointment of Women: more to it than meets the eye\",\"authors\":\"Tabeth Masengu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in South Africa was established in response to a pre-democratic era appointment system rich in patronage, opaqueness, and invariably, inequality. The use of judicial appointment bodies has been recommended by the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, as a method of preserving judicial independence. However, not much research has been conducted into whether there is an absence of patronage and power dynamics when judicial appointment bodies replace executive type of appointments. This paper suggests that the introduction of appointment bodies does not eradicate privilege and power dynamics as some might believe. Rather, it creates a different type of dynamic that can be harmful for women.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of the Legal Profession\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of the Legal Profession\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547\",\"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/10.1080/09695958.2019.1622547","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: 4

摘要

南非司法服务委员会(JSC)的建立是为了应对前民主时代的任命制度,该制度充满了任免、不透明和不平等。《英联邦拉蒂默府原则》建议使用司法任命机构,作为维护司法独立的一种方法。然而,在司法任命机构取代行政任命时,是否存在庇护和权力动态的缺失,这方面的研究并不多。这篇论文表明,任命机构的引入并没有像一些人认为的那样消除特权和权力动态。相反,它创造了一种可能对女性有害的不同类型的动态。
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
The Judicial Service Commission and the appointment of Women: more to it than meets the eye
ABSTRACT The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in South Africa was established in response to a pre-democratic era appointment system rich in patronage, opaqueness, and invariably, inequality. The use of judicial appointment bodies has been recommended by the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles, as a method of preserving judicial independence. However, not much research has been conducted into whether there is an absence of patronage and power dynamics when judicial appointment bodies replace executive type of appointments. This paper suggests that the introduction of appointment bodies does not eradicate privilege and power dynamics as some might believe. Rather, it creates a different type of dynamic that can be harmful for women.
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