Nekonečný příběh Nejvyšší rady soudnictví: Kdo ji chce a proč ji pořád nemáme?

Establishment of the judicial council has been debated for decades in Czechia. However, we still miss a comprehensive understanding of the positions and arguments of key actors involved in judicial governance: judges, politicians and lawyers. This article fills this gap and maps the existing arguments in favour and against a judicial council. It poses three research questions: (1) Do elites support the establishment of a judicial council and how do they justify their position? (2) What form of judicial governance do they perceive as ideal? (3) What are their expectations from the judicial council? Judges, politicians and lawyers identify the same two core challenges of the current system: The ministry of justice lacks the vision and capacity to govern the courts, and thus it informally delegates majority of its competences on court presidents. Too strong court presidents in turn make the system fragmented and endanger internal independence of rank-and-file judges. Elites however disagree whether the establishment of a judicial council can solve these issues. Majority of judges support the judicial council and hope for the unification of judicial governance across the country. Some politicians are willing to accept a weak model of judicial council if the ministry of justice can still determine the contours of judicial governance. At the same time, politicians consider the current fragmented system of judicial governance as more resistant against the capture of the judiciary. Lawyers see judicial council as a risky model which might encapsulate the judiciary. The key solution of the current problems, according to lawyers, rests in the reform of legal education and enhancing the quality of the judicial decision-making. Unfortunately, the neither recent policy debates nor the pending bills on the Law on Courts and Judges have addressed the key challenges raised by our interviewees.

Download Full-text

Reporting case law: unreported cases, the definition of a ratio and the criteria for reporting decisions

Legal Studies ◽

10.1111/j.1748-121x.1985.tb00609.x ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 205-232 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

N. H. Andrews

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Case Law ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Efficient System ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

The Public ◽

Reporting Decisions ◽

Definition Of ◽

Practical Arguments

An efficient system of law reporting is beneficial in a number of ways. First, accurate reports are necessary if the principle that like cases should be decided alike is to be achieved. Secondly and relatedly, a strict system of precedent, which renders most decisions binding on courts, requires all decisions which have precedential value to be recorded. Thirdly, full reports of what judges say, including dissents, enable subsequent courts to consider the complex of normative and practical arguments which has been articulated in previous decisions. This both adds to the richness of material guiding lawyers and citizens at large and improves the quality of judicial decision-making. Fourthly, reporting courts’ reasons for reaching a decision is important since it exposes judges to scrutiny by fellow judges, practitioners, academics and the public at large. Reporting therefore serves the principle of accountability.

Download Full-text

The New Civil Procedure Code and the Challenges for the Brazilian Legal Education System

Legal Information Management ◽

10.1017/s1472669615000304 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

pp. 116-120 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Renê Francisco Hellman ◽

Mariana Cesto

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Legal System ◽

Education System ◽

Legal Education ◽

Interdisciplinary Approach ◽

Civil Procedure ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

Procedure Code ◽

New Challenges

AbstractThis article by Renê Francisco Hellman and Mariana Cesto aims to analyse how the New Civil Procedure Code will influence the Brazilian legal education system. The new Code is opposed to ‘surprise decisions’ and emphasizes the need for substantial opportunity to contradict the opponent's submissions. This will constrain judicial decision-making. On that basis, new challenges appear for teaching, and they must be faced and solved in order to make the new prescriptions effective. The proposal is to use an interdisciplinary approach to reformulate the legal education system. This would effectively provide better support to future lawyers regarding their development, making them better qualified to operate within the legal system.

Download Full-text

Deliberação Interna e Legitimação das Cortes Supremas

Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito – PPGDir /UFRGS ◽

10.22456/2317-8558.72621 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Bruno Meneses Lorenzetto ◽

Letticia De Pauli Schaitza

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Separation Of Powers ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Supreme Courts ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

Legislative Power ◽

Decision Making Models

DELIBERAÇÃO INTERNA E LEGITIMAÇÃO DAS CORTES SUPREMAS INTERNAL DELIBERATION AND SUPREME COURTS’ LEGITIMACY Bruno Meneses Lorenzetto*Letticia de Pauli Schaitza** RESUMO: O artigo parte da superação da concepção estática de separação de poderes e critica os argumentos normalmente utilizados para justificar a legitimidade das Cortes Supremas para rever atos do Poder Legislativo por ignorarem que os juízes não decidem em um vácuo institucional e que a interação com seus pares influencia na tomada da decisão. Dessa forma, através da exposição dos modelos legal, atitudinal e estratégico, explicativos da tomada de decisão judicial, apresenta as Cortes não apenas como interlocutoras externas, mas sobretudo como tribunais colegiados deliberativos, a fim de enfatizar a importância da deliberação colegiada para a legitimidade da jurisdição constitucional e a qualidade da sua performance. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Legitimação Jurisdicional. Deliberação. Cortes Supremas. ABSTRACT: The article assumes the overcoming of the static conception of the separation of powers and criticizes the arguments normally used to justify the legitimacy of the Supreme Courts to review acts of the Legislative Power to the extand that they ignore that the judges do not decide in an institutional vacuum and that the interaction with their peers influences in the decision making process. Thus, through the exposition of legal, attitudinal and strategic judicial decision-making models, it presents the Courts not only as external interlocutors, but above all as collegiate deliberative tribunals, in order to emphasize the importance of collegial deliberation to constitutional jurisdiction legitimacy and the quality of its performance. KEYWORDS: Jurisdictional Legitimacy. Deliberation. Supreme Courts. SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 A Nova Configuração do Princípio da Separação dos Poderes e a Legitimação da Corte Constitucional. 2 Cortes Supremas como “Deliberadores Internos”: a Deliberação em um Tribunal Colegiado. Considerações Finais. Referências. _________________________* Doutor em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). Professor de Direito da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR). Coordenador do Programa de Mestrado em Direito e Professor da Graduação do Centro Universitário Autônomo do Brasil (UniBrasil), Paraná. Visiting Scholar na Columbia Law University, Estados Unidos.** Mestranda em Direito das Relações Sociais pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). Integrante do Núcleo de Pesquisa em Direito Processual Civil Comparado da Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR).

Download Full-text

The rise of judicial diplomacy in the UK: aims and challenges

Legal Studies ◽

10.1017/lst.2019.18 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (1) ◽

pp. 77-94

Author(s):

Gregory Davies

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Judicial Independence ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

Documentary Sources ◽

Institutional Relations ◽

The Uk ◽

Depth Interviews ◽

Supranational Level

AbstractThis paper examines the aims and challenges of ‘judicial diplomacy’ in the form of bilateral meetings between UK and supranational judges. Drawing from in-depth interviews, extra-judicial writings and other documentary sources, it argues that judicial diplomacy has become an important feature of the work of senior judges in the UK, allowing them to pursue jurisprudential and strategic aims. In jurisprudential terms, the judges have sought to improve the quality of judicial decision-making at the domestic and supranational levels. Strategically, they have striven to maintain robust inter-institutional relations and maximise their influence at the supranational level. The pursuit of these aims has taken on renewed significance in the context of Brexit but may raise questions for the protection of judicial independence and impartiality. The judiciaries should therefore consider steps to improve the visibility of these interactions and their value.

Download Full-text

Murder under duress and judicial decision-making in the House of Lords

Legal Studies ◽

10.1111/j.1748-121x.1988.tb00377.x ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 61-73

Author(s):

Lynden Walters

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Legal Reasoning ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Present Decade ◽

Mental Element

While finding fault with House of Lords’ decisions in the field ofcriminal law is by no means a new academic sport, the present decade is proving particularly fruitful for the critic. The precise ramifications of Caldwelll and Lawrence are still being thrashed out. seymour, on manslaughter, was unforgiveably ambiguous. Moloney and Hancock and Shankland left the mental element in murder hopelessly opaque. In impossible attempts Anderton v Ryan revealed a degree of ineptitude which even the House of Lords had to recognise in overruling itselfonly a year later in Shivpuri.It is not simply a questionofacademics taking issue with the outcomeof a particular decision. The further, and in some respects even more worrying, aspect of many of these decisions is the quality of the legal reasoning they embody.

Download Full-text

Examining Judicial Decision-making: An Axiological Analytical Tool

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia ◽

10.17951/sil.2020.29.3.55-65 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (3) ◽

pp. 55

Author(s):

John McClellan Marshall

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Analytical Tool ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Judicial Decision Making ◽

Complex Series ◽

The People ◽

The Law

<p>One thing that is characteristic of the judicial decision-making process regardless of the structure of the judiciary in a particular country or region is that the judge is responsible for making a decision that is both consistent with the law and is such that the people will follow it. This presents a judge with a very complex series of variables that must be considered when formulating a decision. The axiological approach to the analysis of the process and the outcome, the decision if you will, enhances both the quality of the content and the “validity” of the decision.</p>

Download Full-text