International Journal for Court Administration最新文献_第6页

Epilogue: Courts as ‘Low Trust’ Environments: Repurposing Francis Fukuyama 结语:法院作为“低信任”的环境:重新利用弗朗西斯·福山

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.423

K. Laster

引用次数: 0

Understanding and Managing Trust Norms 理解和管理信任规范

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.425

V. Braithwaite

引用次数: 1

Measuring Trust and Confidence in Courts 衡量对法院的信任和信心

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.418

Anne Wallace, J. Goodman-Delahunty

引用次数: 1

Designing for Trust: Role and Benefits of Human-Centered Design in the Legal System 为信任而设计:以人为本设计在法律制度中的作用与效益

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.422

I. Karpen, M. Senova

引用次数: 2

Building Trust: Can Courts Learn From Royal Commissions? 建立信任:法院能向皇家委员会学习吗?

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.420

M. Neave

引用次数: 1

Bridging Gaps, Not Leaping Chasms: Trust, Confidence and Sentencing Councils 弥合鸿沟，而非跨越鸿沟:信任、信心和量刑委员会

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.421

A. Freiberg

引用次数: 1

Utility Maximizing Judges and Judicial Assistants: Testing Rational Choice Theory in 22 EU Countries 法官和司法助理效用最大化——对欧盟22国理性选择理论的检验

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2020-10-15 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.361

Fatih Deyneli, P. Mascini

{"title":"Utility Maximizing Judges and Judicial Assistants: Testing Rational Choice Theory in 22 EU Countries","authors":"Fatih Deyneli, P. Mascini","doi":"10.36745/ijca.361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.361","url":null,"abstract":"By using a longitudinal bi-annual dataset (2012–2018) from the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (Cepej) for 22 EU countries, this study tests four hypotheses that have been derived from rational choice theory at individual and aggregated level. The positive associations between caseload and productivity support the hypothesis that judges sacrifice leisure or the quality of their decisions to achieve a reduction in backlogs. While the lack of association between the number of assistants and judge’s productivity supports the hypothesis that appointing new staff reduces caseload, thereby inducing judges to substitute time they spend on resolving cases for leisure or improving the quality of their decisions, while the positive association between the number of judges and productivity contradicts this hypothesis. The finding that assistant’s caseload negatively moderates the relationship between judge’s caseload and judge’s productivity supports the hypothesis that as the caseload of assistants increases, judges are releaved of more administrative tasks, thereby allowing judges to spend more time on leisure or improving the quality of their decisions rather than on resolving cases. Our findings suggest that assistants use similar trade-offs as judges and affect judges’ utility maximizing behaviour.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44207741","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}

引用次数: 0

Explaining Judicial Assistants’ Influence on Adjudication with Principal-Agent Theory and Contextual Factors 用委托代理理论和语境因素解释司法助理对裁判的影响

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2020-10-15 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.357

P. Mascini, N. Holvast

{"title":"Explaining Judicial Assistants’ Influence on Adjudication with Principal-Agent Theory and Contextual Factors","authors":"P. Mascini, N. Holvast","doi":"10.36745/ijca.357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.357","url":null,"abstract":"By way of a survey among 80 Dutch administrative law judges, this paper uses principal-agent theory, as well as contextual factors, to explain judicial assistants’ influence on adjudication. Principal-agent theory has, thus far, been applied mainly to the setting of the US Supreme Court—to test the hypothesis that judicial assistants influence justices’ decisions less, as the political attitudes of assistants and justices differ more. To create a more universal theory to explain judicial assistants’ influence, we have derived five other hypotheses from principal-agent theory, which can also be used to explain judicial assistants’ influence in other court settings. As expected, we find that judges’ managerial role orientation, trust in judicial assistants and favourable risk-benefit perception of assistants’ input increase assistants’ influence. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find judges’ rule of law role orientation and relative experience of assistants to be correlated with assistants’ influence. Likewise, none of the contextual factors—panel judgments (vs. single-judge judgments), complexity of court cases and time pressure—are correlated with assistants’ influence. While three perceived risks of defection explain the influence that judges allow assistants, contextual factors do not. As such, our study shows that—when operationalised differently—principal-agent theory can be fruitfully applied to settings apart from the politicised US Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46780373","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}

引用次数: 2

Is the Judge or the Clerk Making the Decision? Measuring the Influence of Judicial Assistants via an Experimental Survey among Dutch District Court Judges 是法官还是书记作出裁决?通过对荷兰地方法院法官的实验调查来衡量司法助理的影响力

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2020-10-15 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.358

N. Holvast, P. Mascini

引用次数: 1

Court Administration at a Time of Uncertainty 不确定时期的法院管理

International Journal for Court Administration Pub Date : 2020-08-10 DOI: 10.36745/ijca.342

Tim Bunjevac, M. Zimmer, P. Langbroek, G. Ng

引用次数: 0