Feuding, arbitration, and the emergence of an independent judiciary

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Broman ◽  
Georg Vanberg
Keyword(s):  
Independent Judiciary

Ethics in the Judiciary System of Bangladesh

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
Mehedi Imam
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
The Other ◽  
Considerable Time ◽  
Ethical Knowledge ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Role Players ◽  
High Level

In Bangladesh, demand for judicial independence in practice has been a much debated issue and the demand is fulfilled but expectation of people is not only limited to have an independent judiciary but to have an impartial system and cadre of people, which will administer justice rationally being free from fear or force. The independence of judiciary and the impartial judicial practice are related concepts, one cannot sustain without the other and here existence as well as the need of practicing impartiality is well recognized. But the art of practicing impartiality does not develop overnight as it’s related to development of one’s attitude. It takes a considerable time resulting from understanding, appreciating and acknowledging the moral values, ethics and professional responsibility. The judiciary includes Judges, Advocates mostly who are expected to demonstrate a high level of moral values and impartiality towards people seeking justice and ‘rule of law’. This is true that bench officers and clerks are also part of the process to ensure rule of law with same level of participation by the law enforcing agencies such as police. However the paper includes only those who either join judiciary as Judge/Magistrate or Advocate to explore level and extent of ethical knowledge they receive being key role players of the system. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v1i2.9628 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(2): 34-36

Reconciling state promises and practices: Constitutional promises and discrimination against religious minorities

2021 ◽  
pp. 003776862110123
Author(s):  
Roger Finke ◽  
Dane R Mataic
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Minority Religions ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Poor Predictor

Research on religious freedom has found a vast chasm between constitutional promises and state practices, with constitutional promises being a poor predictor of the state’s support of religious freedom. This research changes the focus from religious freedom to religious equality. We propose that constitutional promises of religious equality will be associated with less discrimination against minority religions and we explore the relationships governance and the promises of religious equality hold with religious discrimination. We find that promises of religious equality are associated with less discrimination. When exploring the interactions between promises of equality and our governance measures, we find constitutional promises of religious equality largely erase the differences in religious discrimination between countries with and without free elections and an independent judiciary. Yet, the reduced discrimination against minority religions does not suggest that the state removes restrictions on minority religions, only that they are equal with other religions.

A Discussion of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1092-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri Berman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
New York Times ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Democratic Breakdown ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
American Case ◽  
The Many ◽  
Political Norms

Among the many scholarly attempts to reckon with the causes and consequences of Donald Trump’s rise, few have attracted popular attention on the scale of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die. Seldom do books by political scientists make it onto the New York Times best sellers list, but this one has, a testament to its broad influence. Levitsky and Ziblatt situate Trumpism within a broader comparative and historical context in order to assess its similarities to and differences from democratic breakdowns elsewhere, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Their broad argument is that modern slides into authoritarianism are not the result of revolutions or military coups, but rather the consequence of a steady erosion of political norms and the assault on such fundamental democratic institutions as an independent judiciary and a free press. In short, contemporary democracies die not as a result of men with guns attacking from outside the system, but rather because elected leaders from inside that system slowly undermine them. Judged from this standpoint, the authors argue that American democracy is now in real danger, and they offer a range of suggestions for saving it. How convincing is Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analysis of democratic breakdown, and how well does it apply to the American case? How useful are the solutions that they offer for rescuing American democracy? We have asked a range of prominent scholars from across the discipline to consider these questions in the present symposium.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals Opposition and Legislative Minorities: Constitutional Roles, Rights and Recognition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot Bulmer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Service ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Government ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
Opposition Parties

This Primer examines the recognition, roles and rights of the opposition and the legislative minority in democratic constitutions. Opposition parties operating in democracies rely upon a wide range of constitutional protections, such as the freedoms of association, assembly and expression, backed by an independent judiciary and an impartial civil service. These protections ensure that opponents of the government continue to enjoy equal rights and are not criminalized, harassed or disadvantaged. However, many constitutions go further, formally recognizing the role, powers and responsibilities of the opposition or legislative minority in democratic politics.

scholarly journals The Conflict between the Principles of the National Identity of Member States and Values of European Union Such as Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights and Liberal Democracy – Case Study of Hungary

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-173
Author(s):  
Kumush Suyunova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Member States ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
European Values ◽  
The Eu

Summary Human rights are indivisible. The EU holds resolute tone against the challenges of universal human rights. As an adequate method of governance the EU acknowledges the rule of law that encompasses transparent and reliable legal system, an independent judiciary, prevention of arbitrary executive power; legal egalitarianism and respect for rights and freedoms of individuals. The concept of democracy determines the values behind the governance of a country. Thus, the EU’s vision of democracy comprises several principles: political equality, representative and participative democracy, which include fair elections, separation of power, effective checks and balances. However, despite the EU’s efforts to promote human rights, rule of law and democracy, some member States are still lagging behind the overall positive achievement. Hungary, who pick up illiberal democracy over established European values, has become the focus of attention.

John Marshall’s Sea Mine

2018 ◽  
pp. 88-97
Author(s):  
Eric M. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
British History ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Political Background

The notion of an independent judiciary that restrained the other branches was an infant with a questionable life expectancy when John Marshall stated in placatory dicta in Ex Parte Bollman (1807)—quite wrongly as a matter of both British history and American constitutional law— that the federal courts had no inherent authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in the absence of legislation. The Suspension Clause, he claimed, was merely precatory, an injunction to Congress to pass such legislation. The highly political case involved Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout, alleged members of the Aaron Burr conspiracy, and pitted prominent federalists such as petitioners’ counsel Robert Goodloe Harper and Charles Lee against the administration of Thomas Jefferson. After reviewing the factual and political background, this chapter details the arguments of counsel in favor of inherent judicial authority to grant the writ and Marshall’s rejection of them. Judicial autonomy was under threat at the time and Marshall was trying to defend it But his words were a judicial sea mine that created a long-term danger: Congress could by simple inaction evade the bedrock prohibition against suspension of the writ.

24. Criminal justice institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 719-741
Author(s):  
Steve Case ◽  
Phil Johnson ◽  
David Manlow ◽  
Roger Smith ◽  
Kate Williams
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Considerable Influence ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Governmental Agency ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Government

This chapter explores the criminal justice institutions. In practice, the criminal justice system contains five distinct institutions that are responsible for delivering justice: the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (known as the CPS), the courts, probation providers, and prisons. Although they are all part of one overall system, each has different aims, roles, and challenges. Theoretically, the fact that these bodies are all accountable to the separation of powers concept should bring some unity in that it gives Parliament, the independent judiciary, and central government opportunities to shape the system to align with their version of justice. The government can exert considerable influence through the work of the Ministry of Justice or MoJ. The MoJ is currently the most important governmental agency in the criminal justice system, but the larger and more powerful Home Office is also involved to an extent, mainly with the police.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document