J 2013

The Least Accountable Branch

KOSAŘ, David

Základní údaje

Originální název

The Least Accountable Branch

Autoři

Vydání

International Journal of Constitutional Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, 1474-2640

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

50500 5.5 Law

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 0.568

Označené pro přenos do RIV

Ano

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14220/13:00067499

Organizační jednotka

Právnická fakulta

UT WoS

000320859900014

Klíčová slova anglicky

judges; judicial accountability; judicial independence; rule of law; transitional justice; court presidents

Štítky

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 3. 4. 2014 12:20, Mgr. Petra Georgala

Anotace

V originále

This article analyzes the concept of judicial accountability. It builds on three recent books (“Independence, Accountability, and the Judiciary” edited by Guy Canivet, Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve; “Transitional Justice, Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law” by Hakeem Yusuf; and “Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe: From Rule of Law to Quality of Justice” by Daniela Piana) that deal with judicial accountability and suggests avenues for further research. In section 1, I briefly summarize the content and key arguments of the three recent books on judicial accountability. Section 2 focuses on the relationship between judicial accountability and the concept of accountability. Section 3 deals with the three key questions of judicial accountability: accountability of whom, to whom, and for what. Section 4 is devoted to the role of cultural factors in holding judges to account. Section 5 looks at various approaches to reckoning with the past within the judiciary and how these approaches affect post-authoritarian and post-totalitarian societies that are in the process of transition to democracy. Section 6 briefly examines the widely disputed relationship between judicial accountability and judicial independence. Section 7 identifies avenues for further research and section 8 concludes.