KOSAŘ, David. The Least Accountable Branch. International Journal of Constitutional Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, vol. 11, No 1, p. 234-260. ISSN 1474-2640. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos056.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
Basic information
Original name The Least Accountable Branch
Authors KOSAŘ, David (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution).
Edition International Journal of Constitutional Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, 1474-2640.
Other information
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 50500 5.5 Law
Country of publisher United States of America
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
Impact factor Impact factor: 0.568
RIV identification code RIV/00216224:14220/13:00067499
Organization unit Faculty of Law
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos056
UT WoS 000320859900014
Keywords in English judges; judicial accountability; judicial independence; rule of law; transitional justice; court presidents
Tags rivok
Tags International impact, Reviewed
Changed by Changed by: Mgr. Petra Georgala, učo 32967. Changed: 3/4/2014 12:20.
Abstract
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.
PrintDisplayed: 1/10/2024 04:13