Judicial independence and accountability

Shimon Shetreet

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511996399.003

1 - Judicial independence and accountability

core values in liberal democracies

from Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2011

Shimon Shetreet

Edited by

H. P. Lee

Show author details

H. P. Lee: Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The study of judicial independence is important in national legal systems as it is an essential guarantee for democracy and liberty. Judicial independence is also an essential feature in ensuring a globalised economy. Corporations must have confidence in the impartiality and independence of the tribunals that will adjudicate disputes in the multiple jurisdictions in which they operate around the world.

Recent decades have witnessed a marked increase in the relative role of the judiciary in society. This general trend is shared by countries with different legal traditions and various systems of government. The judiciary is a significant social institution, and like the other branches of government, contributes to shaping the life of the community. The increasing role which the judiciary has assumed warrants some re-examination of the conceptual framework and the theoretical rationales which define its position in relation to the other branches of the government. One of the most significant aspects of the role of the judiciary in society is its independence and impartiality.

Type: Chapter
Information: Judiciaries in Comparative Perspective , pp. 3 - 24

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996399.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Shetreet, S.Practical and Value Problems in the Administration of JusticeShetreet, S.Recent Developments in Israeli Case Law and Legislation, Collection of Lectures Delivered at the Judges’ ConferenceJerusalemHarry Sacher Institute 1977 80Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.The Administration ofJustice: Practical Problems, Value Conflicts and Changing Concepts 1979 13 University of British Columbia Law Review52Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.The Limits of Expeditious JusticeHowland, JusticeExpeditious JusticeCanadian Institute for Administration of Justice 1979 1Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.Time Standards of Justice 1979 5 Dalhousie Law Journal129Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.Adjudication: Challenges of the Present and Blueprints for the FutureFestschrift in Honour of Professor Walther J. HabscheidWest Germany 1989 295Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.Judges on Trial, A Study of the Appointment and Accountability of the English JudiciaryAmsterdamNorth-Holland 1976 204Google Scholar

Gavison, R.The Court and the Duty to Reason 1970 2 Mishpatim89Google Scholar

Gavish, M.The Duty to State Reasons for Decisions 1989 17 Israel Tax Quarterly207Google Scholar

Zamir, I.On Justice in the High Court of Justice 1970 26 Hapraklit212Google Scholar

Akehurst, M.Statements ofReasons for Judicial and Administrative Decisions 1970 33 Modern Law Review154CrossRef Google Scholar

Hooper, A.Comment 1970 48 Canadian Bar Review584Google Scholar

Jolowicz, J. A.A Duty to Give Reasons 2000 59 Cambridge Law Journal263CrossRef Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.The Administration of Justice: Practical Problems, Value Conflicts and Changing Concepts 1979 13 University of British Columbia Law Review52Google Scholar

Abel-Smith, B.Stevens, R.Lawyers and the CourtsLondonHeinemann 1967Google Scholar

Abel-Smith, B.Stevens, R.In Search of JusticeLondonPenguin 1968Google Scholar

Jackson, R. M.The Machinery of Justice in EnglandNew YorkCambridge University Press 1977 473Google Scholar

Blom-Cooper, L. J.Drewry, G.Final Appeal: A Study of the House of Lords in its Judicial CapacityOxfordClarendon Press 1972 152Google Scholar

Hood, R. G.Sentencing the Motoring OffenderLondonHeinemann Educational 1972 41Google Scholar

Baldwin, J.The Composition of the Magistracy 1979 16 British Journal of Criminology171CrossRef Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.On Assessing the Role of Courts in Society 1980 10 Manitoba Law Journal357Google Scholar

Hailsham, LordThe Independence of the Judicial Process 1978 13 Israel Law Review8Google Scholar

Nejelski, P. A.Judging in a Democracy: The Tension of Popular Participation 1977 61 Judicature166Google Scholar

Friesen, E. C.Gallas, E. C.Gallas, N. M.Managing the CourtsIndianapolisBobbs-Merrill 1971 87Google Scholar

Pétren, G.The Independence of the JudiciaryHelsinki Symposium 1980 95Google Scholar

Cappelletti, M.Who Watches the Watchmen? A Comparative Study on Judicial Responsibility 1983 31 American Journal of Comparative Law7CrossRef Google Scholar

Vescovi, E.La Independencia de la Magistratura en la Evolucion Actual del DerechoHabscheid, W.Effectiveness of Judicial Protection and Constitutional OrderBielefeldGieseking 1983 169Google Scholar

Chase, Oscar G.Law Culture and Ritual: Disputing Systems in Cross-Cultural ContextNew YorkNew York University Press 2005Google Scholar

Whitbread, D. H.Mass Production Justice and Constitutional IdeaCharlottesville, VAMichie 1970 1Google Scholar

Grocz, S.Beatson, J.Duffy, P.Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European ConventionLondonSweet & Maxwell 2008Google Scholar

Janies, M. W.Kay, R. S.Bradley, A.European Human Rights Law: Text and MaterialsOxford University Press 2008Google Scholar

Clayton, R.Tomlinson, H.The Law of Human RightsOxford University Press 2008Google Scholar

Andrews, N.English Civil ProcedureOxford University Press 2003 5.39Google Scholar

Andrews, N.English Civil Justice and RemediesTokyoShinzansha 2007Google Scholar

Andrews, N.Contracts and English Dispute ResolutionJigakushaNagoya University Japan 2010Google Scholar

Jolowicz, J. A.AngleterreCappelletti, M.Tallon, D.Fundamental Guarantees of the Parties in Civil LitigationMilanA. Giuffre 1973 121Google Scholar

Stephen, NinianJudicial Independence – A Fragile BastionShetreet, S.Deschenes, J.Judicial Independence: The Contemporary DebateDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1985 529Google Scholar

Andrews, N.Principles of Civil ProcedureLondonSweet & Maxwell 1994Google Scholar

Andrews, N.The Modern Civil Process. Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in EnglandTubingenMore Siebeck 2008Google Scholar

Andrews, N.The Four Principles of Civil JusticeShetreet, S.Forsyth, C.The Culture of Judicial Independence: Conceptual Foundations and Practical ChallengesDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff

Andrews, N.The Modern Procedural Synthesis: the American Law Institute and UNIDROIT’s “Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure” 2008 164 Revista de Processo109Google Scholar

ALI–UNIDROITPrinciples of Transnational Civil ProcedureCambridge University Press 2006Google Scholar

Stürner, R.The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure . . 2005 Rabels ZeitschriftLeipzigMax Planck Institute201Google Scholar

Andrews, N.Embracing the Noble Quest for Transnational Procedural PrinciplesAndenas, M.Andrews, N.Nazzini, R.The Future of Transnational Commercial Litigation: English Responses to the ALI–UNIDROIT Draft Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil ProcedureLondonBritish Institute of Comparative Law 2003Google Scholar

Storme, M.Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European UnionAlphen aan den RijnKluwer Law International 1994

Shetreet, S.Models of Constitutional Adjudication: A Comparative AnalysisGrinovner, A. P.Calmon, P.Papers Presented at the XII Congress of Procedural LawRio de JaneiroForensa 2007 769Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.Judicial Independence on the Scope of Internal IndependenceLongo, E.Judicial Independence Today, in honor of Justice GiovanniMilanGiuffre 1999 345Google Scholar

Cappelletti, Consider M.Who Watches the Watchmen?: A Comparative Study on Judicial Responsibility 1983 31 American Journal of Comparative LawCrossRef Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.Justice in Israel: A Study of the Israeli JudiciaryDordrechtMartibnus Nijhoff 1994Google Scholar

Carson, J. L.Kleinerman, B. A.A Switch in Time Saves Nine: Institutions, Strategic Actors, and FDR’s Court-Packing Plan 2002 113 Public Choice301CrossRef Google Scholar

Nelson, M.The President and the Court: Reinterpreting the Court-Packing Episode of 1937 1988 103 Political Science Quarterly267CrossRef Google Scholar

Caldeira, G. A.Public Opinion and the US Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan 1987 81 American Political Science Review1139CrossRef Google Scholar

Shetreet, S.The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges 2009 10 Chicago Journal of International Law275Google Scholar

Hatchard, J.Slinn, P.Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence: A Commonwealth ApproachLondonCavendish 1999 167

Shetreet, S.Proceedings of the Jerusalem Conference on Judicial IndependenceJerusalemSacher Institute 2008

Jowell, J. 2001 Public Law 675 Judges should be independent of all forms of external non-judicial influences which might affect their decision-making processGoogle Scholar

Steyn, LordThe Case for a Supreme Court 2002 118 Law Quarterly Review382Google Scholar

Book contents

1 - Judicial independence and accountability

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive