Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@article{1480119,
author = {Kosař, David and Spáč, Samuel},
article_location = {Utrecht},
article_number = {3},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/ijca.284},
keywords = {European Network of Councils for the Judiciary; Judicial Independence and Accountability; Measurement; Indicators},
language = {eng},
issn = {2156-7964},
journal = {International Journal For Court Administration},
title = {Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back},
url = {https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ijca.284/},
volume = {9},
year = {2018}
}
TY - JOUR
ID - 1480119
AU - Kosař, David - Spáč, Samuel
PY - 2018
TI - Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
JF - International Journal For Court Administration
VL - 9
IS - 3
SP - 37-46
EP - 37-46
PB - Utrecht School of Law, Utrecht University
SN - 21567964
KW - European Network of Councils for the Judiciary
KW - Judicial Independence and Accountability
KW - Measurement
KW - Indicators
UR - https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ijca.284/
L2 - https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ijca.284/
N2 - 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.
ER -
KOSAŘ, David and Samuel SPÁČ. Conceptualization(s) of Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back. \textit{International Journal For Court Administration}. Utrecht: Utrecht School of Law, Utrecht University, 2018, vol.~9, No~3, p.~37-46. ISSN~2156-7964. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.18352/ijca.284.
|
