Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Q2 Social Sciences
D. Kosař, Samuel Spáč
{"title":"Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back","authors":"D. Kosař, Samuel Spáč","doi":"10.18352/IJCA.284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on conceptual issues regarding the new methodology of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for measuring judicial independence and accountability. First, we argue that the proposal mixes up several concepts – judicial independence, judicial accountability, transparency of the judiciary, and public trust in the judiciary – which should be treated separately. Second, the proposal relies too much on conceptions of independence developed by the judicial community. As a result, it treats judicial administration with higher levels of involvement of judges as inherently better without empirical evidence, and does not sufficiently distinguish between de iure and de facto judicial independence. Moreover, the ENCJ’s indicators of judicial accountability are underinclusive as well as overinclusive and do not correspond to the traditional understanding of the concept. Finally, we argue that the ENCJ has to accept the possibility that (at least some types of) judicial councils (at least in some jurisdictions) might negatively affect (at least some facets of) judicial independence and judicial accountability. As a result, the ENCJ must adjust the relevant indicators accordingly.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Court Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article focuses on conceptual issues regarding the new methodology of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for measuring judicial independence and accountability. First, we argue that the proposal mixes up several concepts – judicial independence, judicial accountability, transparency of the judiciary, and public trust in the judiciary – which should be treated separately. Second, the proposal relies too much on conceptions of independence developed by the judicial community. As a result, it treats judicial administration with higher levels of involvement of judges as inherently better without empirical evidence, and does not sufficiently distinguish between de iure and de facto judicial independence. Moreover, the ENCJ’s indicators of judicial accountability are underinclusive as well as overinclusive and do not correspond to the traditional understanding of the concept. Finally, we argue that the ENCJ has to accept the possibility that (at least some types of) judicial councils (at least in some jurisdictions) might negatively affect (at least some facets of) judicial independence and judicial accountability. As a result, the ENCJ must adjust the relevant indicators accordingly.
欧洲司法委员会网络对司法独立和司法问责制的概念化:前进两步,后退一步
本文重点讨论了欧洲司法委员会网络(ENCJ)衡量司法独立性和问责制的新方法的概念问题。首先,我们认为该提案混淆了几个概念——司法独立、司法问责制、司法透明度和公众对司法的信任——这些概念应该分开对待。其次,该提案过于依赖司法界提出的独立概念。因此,在没有经验证据的情况下,它将法官参与程度更高的司法行政视为天生更好,并且没有充分区分事实上的司法独立和事实上的独立。此外,欧洲法院的司法问责指标既包含不足,也包含过度,与对这一概念的传统理解不符。最后,我们认为,ENCJ必须接受(至少某些类型的)司法委员会(至少在某些司法管辖区)可能对(至少某些方面的)司法独立和司法问责制产生负面影响的可能性。因此,ENCJ必须相应地调整相关指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Court Administration (IJCA) is an on-line journal which focuses on contemporary court administration and management. It provides a platform for the professional exchange of knowledge, experience and research in those areas for a diverse audience of practitioners and academics. Its scope is international, and the editors welcome submissions from court officials, judges, justice ministry officials, academics and others whose professional, research projects, and interests lie in the practical aspects of the effective administration of justice. IJCA is an open access journal, and its articles are subjected to a double blind peer review procedure. Please contact the editors if you are not sure whether your research falls into these categories.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信