Detailed Information on Publication Record
2018
Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
KOSAŘ, David and Samuel SPÁČBasic information
Original name
Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
Authors
KOSAŘ, David (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution) and Samuel SPÁČ (703 Slovakia, belonging to the institution)
Edition
International Journal For Court Administration, Utrecht, Utrecht School of Law, Utrecht University, 2018, 2156-7964
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
50501 Law
Country of publisher
Netherlands
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14220/18:00104978
Organization unit
Faculty of Law
Keywords in English
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary; Judicial Independence and Accountability; Measurement; Indicators
Tags
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 10/7/2020 14:18, Mgr. Petra Georgala
Abstract
V originále
This article focuses on conceptual issues regarding the new methodology of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for measuring judicial independence and accountability. First, we argue that the proposal mixes up several concepts – judicial independence, judicial accountability, transparency of the judiciary, and public trust in the judiciary – which should be treated separately. Second, the proposal relies too much on conceptions of independence developed by the judicial community. As a result, it treats judicial administration with higher levels of involvement of judges as inherently better without empirical evidence, and does not sufficiently distinguish between de iure and de facto judicial independence. Moreover, the ENCJ’s indicators of judicial accountability are underinclusive as well as overinclusive and do not correspond to the traditional understanding of the concept. Finally, we argue that the ENCJ has to accept the possibility that (at least some types of) judicial councils (at least in some jurisdictions) might negatively affect (at least some facets of) judicial independence and judicial accountability. As a result, the ENCJ must adjust the relevant indicators accordingly.
Links
MSM0021622405, plan (intention) |
|