Talks from the World Law Congress - Judicial Independence

Author(s):  
Luis María Díez-Picazo
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-177
Author(s):  
M. S. Islam ◽  
X. Xin

Over the last four decades, China has sustained extraordinary economic development despite Western assertions of under-constructed economic markets and the lack of an independent adjudicative process. The purpose of this paper is to set out the context of China’s judicial independence and high economic development scenario in the global economy. The paper aims to establish that vast economic expansion is possible without the conventional concept of an independent judiciary in which China provides an important example for the world. The study is mainly qualitative in nature and takes the analytical approach. The data and statistics have been collected from sources of the World Bank, IMF, WTO, UNCTAD, The World Factbook of the CIA, and the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. The content analysis references the Chinese Constitution and judges law, reports of the Supreme People’s Court, books, journal articles, newspaper articles, media reports, and internet documents. The findings of the study are that China preserves “adjudicative independence” as a unique feature instead of embracing the Western concept of judicial independence that promotes the confidence of investors to make more investments. Additionally, the initiatives of “Made in China” and “One Belt, One Road” attach new wings to China’s emergence as the world’s crucial economic power. The article concludes that China’s experience provides a lesson for policymakers and economists of other developing or transitional countries struggling with weak legal and court systems, and emerging financial markets. The study strengthens the flourishing literature on the connection between judicial independence and economic development.


2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-215
Author(s):  
Justin Crowe

In the United States, the borderline obsessive academic focus with judicial independence as a political science concept would lead one to believe that judicial independence as an empirical political reality is persistently endangered. And yet, periodic partisan apoplexy about controversial Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, it is anything but: Even with judicial potency in polities as disparate as Israel, India, and Germany, the American judiciary remains perhaps the most powerful and most stable in the world. But with all due respect to John Locke, all the world is emphatically not America. Elsewhere, of course, there are locales where the climate surrounding law and courts is rather different, where judicial independence is inconsistent, threatened, or downright fictitious. It is in the study of these nations that judicial independence deserves the central place in public law scholarship it already occupies in America. And with the publication of Maria Popova's Politicized Justice in Emerging Democracies, students of at least two sets of those nations—post-Soviet states specifically and emerging democracies more generally—have both a clarion call for what they could be studying and a first-rate example of how they could be studying it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Irfan Nur Rachman

Judicial Corruption is a disgrace to the world of justice and disaster for the justice seeker community. The judiciary is the third branch of state power after the executive and legislature. The judicial function is as a control and a counterweight to both branches of the power so as not to fall into arbitrary acts. In other words, the judiciary basically serves to implement the principle of checks and balances. However, if the justice functioning as a counterweight is actually involved in the vortex of judicial corruption that has plagued the judicial institutions, then what happens is the absence of justice because the judicial institution becomes unqualified and degrades its reputation in the public eye. This will lead to a vote of no confidence in the judiciary as a whole and the community has the potential to seek justice in other ways that may be done in illegal ways. Therefore, it is important to realize quality judiciary by organizing institutional aspects, the process of recruitment of constitutional justices, and producing decisions containing new legal breakthroughs, so that will be realized a qualified judicial institution.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Rafia Naz Ali

Democracies exist all over the world. In democratic states, elected officials make collective decisions on behalf of the people. People of a state are allowed to regulate their elected officials by unique institutions such as regular elections, the right to free political participation, universal adult suffrage. Similarly, the freedom of the press. In the state where democracy is assured, government agencies (executive, judiciary, and legislature) operate in individual and collective domains to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities. Every person has a direct relationship with these critical institutions, especially the judiciary. The parties' grievances are filed with the state's administrative body in the event of a violation of duty or citizens' rights. Judicial independence is essential for the state's citizens' rights to be protected. If there is judicial independence, there will equal rights for the citizens.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-135
Author(s):  
Rehan ABEYRATNE

AbstractThe traditional narrative of judicial independence in India and Sri Lanka goes like this. The Indian Constitution established a strong and independent judiciary, which has become one of the most powerful in the world. By contrast, judicial independence was never entrenched in Sri Lanka due to insufficient constitutional safeguards and political interference. This paper seeks to challenge this narrative. It argues that despite important structural differences, India and Sri Lanka have followed similar judicial paths since the 1970s. Both judiciaries relaxed procedural requirements to allow sweeping public interest litigation; defined secularism and regulated religious practices in line with the dominant religious tradition; and largely deferred to the executive on the scope and necessity of emergency regulations. This remarkable convergence in jurisprudence demonstrates that (1) the Sri Lankan Supreme Court is more rights-protective and (2) its Indian counterpart is less willing to assert its independence on controversial issues than traditionally understood.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Dunoff ◽  
Mark A. Pollack

AbstractInternational tribunals confront a “Judicial Trilemma.” More specifically the states that design, and the judges that serve on, international courts face an interlocking series of tradeoffs among three core values: (1) judicial independence, the freedom of judges to decide cases on the facts and the law; (2) judicial accountability, structural checks on judicial authority found most prominently in international courts in reappointment and reelection processes; and (3) judicial transparency, mechanisms that permit the identification of individual judicial positions (such as through individual opinions and dissents). The Trilemma is that it is possible to maximize, at most, two of these three values. Drawing on interviews with current and former judges at leading international courts, this article unpacks the logic underlying the Judicial Trilemma, and traces the varied ways in which this logic manifests itself in the design and operation of the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of the European Union, and the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body. The Judicial Trilemma does not identify an “ideal” court design. Rather it provides a framework that enables international actors to understand the inevitable tradeoffs that international courts confront, and thereby helps to ensure that these tradeoffs are made deliberately and with a richer appreciation of their implications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Gantman ◽  
Robin Gomila ◽  
Joel E. Martinez ◽  
J. Nathan Matias ◽  
Elizabeth Levy Paluck ◽  
...  

AbstractA pragmatist philosophy of psychological science offers to the direct replication debate concrete recommendations and novel benefits that are not discussed in Zwaan et al. This philosophy guides our work as field experimentalists interested in behavioral measurement. Furthermore, all psychologists can relate to its ultimate aim set out by William James: to study mental processes that provide explanations for why people behave as they do in the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document