从绩效评估和管理的“视角”看司法独立和问责制

Q2 Social Sciences
I. Keilitz
{"title":"从绩效评估和管理的“视角”看司法独立和问责制","authors":"I. Keilitz","doi":"10.18352/IJCA.280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM.  It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management\",\"authors\":\"I. Keilitz\",\"doi\":\"10.18352/IJCA.280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM.  It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Court Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-19\",\"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.280\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Court Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.280","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

摘要

本文回顾了欧洲司法理事会网络(ENCJ)的框架,以及欧盟成员国司法机构的独立性、问责制和透明度。其目的是协助欧洲司法委员会进一步制订其司法独立和问责制指标。本文的重点是绩效衡量和管理(PMM),这取决于人们的观点,要么是作为加强司法独立的工具,要么是作为控制司法权力和威胁其独立性的工具。本文首先通过PMM的“镜头”对司法独立、问责制和透明度进行了一般性讨论。报告继续对《司法独立与问责制》的22个指标和64个子指标的概念框架进行了批判性审查和评估,并指出了降低该框架效用的几个缺点。它敦促对概念框架进行重新思考,并提出了另一种模型——投入/产出/结果“逻辑模型”——更易于理解和改进司法独立和问责制的指标。它提出了四项建议,旨在更好地将ENCJ的指标框架与现代PMM的原则和实践结合起来。文章最后警告说,在更高层次的治理和政治中出现了令人不安的事态发展,一些人认为这是欧洲和世界许多其他地区民主和法治的倒退,对作为政府平等伙伴的司法部门构成了生存威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management
This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM.  It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.
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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信