scholarly journals When Judges Defy Dictators: An Audience-Based Framework to Explain the Emergence of Judicial Assertiveness against Authoritarian Regimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-257
Author(s):  
Yasser Kureshi

Under what conditions do judiciaries act assertively against authoritarian regimes? I argue that the judiciary coalesces around institutional norms and preferences in response to the preferences of institutions and networks, or "audiences," with which judges interact, and which shape the careers and reputations of judges. Proposing a typology of judicial-regime relations, I demonstrate that the judiciary's affinity to authoritarian regimes diminishes as these audiences grow independent from the regime. Using case law research, archival research, and interviews, I demonstrate the utility of the audiencebased framework for explaining judicial behavior in authoritarian regimes by exploring cross-temporal variation across authoritarian regimes in Pakistan. This study integrates ideas-based and interest-based explanations for judicial behavior in a generalizable framework for explaining variation in judicial assertiveness against authoritarian regimes.

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-388
Author(s):  
Charles Lindholm

In his influential work, Max Weber argued that the Middle East was fatally hampered in the development of a modern civil society by the existence of arbitrary Qadi justice, based on the personalized decisions of a judiciary reliant only on case law for precedent and lacking any form of rational organization. This individualistic judicial structure (or lack of structure) allowed authoritarian regimes to subvert the courts for their own purposes, destroying the possibility of the development of an autonomous citizenry; meanwhile, in Europe the evolution of a rationally codified legal system acted as a check on governmental tyranny and provided a space for the evolution of independent civic organizations.


Author(s):  
Daniel E. Ho ◽  
Michael Morse

This chapter reviews measurement technologies that have rapidly invigorated the study of judicial behavior, examining the standard approach to measuring judicial “ideal points” and discussing how such measures have facilitated broad new lines of inquiry in understanding judicial decision-making. But the measures, as this chapter explains, are no panacea. Proper use and interpretation depend critically on qualitative assumptions and understanding of underlying case law. This chapter argues that the way forward combines jurisprudentially meaningful data collection with advances in measurement technologies. These concepts are illustrated by empirically informing a long-standing debate about the effect of the Nuremberg trial on Justice Jackson’s jurisprudence.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Carter

The failure to prosecute Dr Jayant Patel successfully for any of the deaths associated with his time as Director of Surgery at Bundaberg Base Hospital was received in some quarters as an abject failure of the criminal law to deal adequately with significant wrongdoing. The case itself, the multiple public inquiries and the significant expense to pursue, extradite and prosecute Patel, resulting finally in a finding of guilt on a number of minor fraud charges, seems to compound this sense of failure. This article argues otherwise. When placed within the far longer and forgotten history of the prosecution of manslaughter by criminal negligence in the Australian jurisdiction, this story of prosecutorial failure becomes instead wholly consistent with the case law over time. No adequate account of the history of prosecution in the Australian jurisdiction exists for this area of law. To present Patel in context, the article draws upon archival research to provide a significantly extended account of the history of prosecution for manslaughter in the health care context. The extension of the case law is significant, from four known prosecutions, case histories of another 33 inadequately acknowledged prosecutions are presented.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.


2014 ◽  
pp. 88-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Syunyaev ◽  
L. Polishchuk

We study the impact of Russian regional governors’ rotation and their affiliation with private sector firms for the quality of investment climate in Russian regions. A theoretical model presented in the paper predicts that these factors taken together improve “endogenous” property rights under authoritarian regimes. This conclusion is confirmed empirically by using Russian regional data for 2002—2010; early in that period gubernatorial elections had been canceled and replaced by federal government’s appointments. This is an indication that under certain conditions government rotation is beneficial for economic development even when democracy is suppressed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document