Jump to content

Judicial reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judicial reform is the complete or partial political reform of a country's judiciary. Judicial reform can be connected to a law reform, constitutional amendment, prison reform, police reform or part of wider reform of the country's political system.[1]

Stated reasons for judicial reform include increasing of the independence of the judiciary, constitutionalism and separation of powers, increased speed of justice, increased fairness of justice,[2] improved impartiality,[3] and improving electoral accountability, political legitimacy and parliamentary sovereignty.[4][5]

Areas of the judicial reform often include: codification of law instead of common law, changing between an inquisitorial system and an adversarial system, changes to court administration such as judicial councils or changes to appointment procedure, establishing mandatory retirement age for judges or increasing the independence of prosecutors from the executive.

Examples

[edit]

Judiciary Act of 1789

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judiciary Act of 1789.[edit]
The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73) was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States.[6][7][8][9][10] Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.[11]

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.[edit]
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[12] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[13] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[14] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years.

Judicial reform of Alexander II

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial reform of Alexander II.[edit]
The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and consistent of all his reforms (along with the military reform). A completely new court system and order of legal proceedings were established. The main results were the introduction of a unified judicial system instead of a cumbersome set of estates of the realm courts, and fundamental changes in criminal trials. The latter included the establishment of the principle of equality of the parties involved, the introduction of public hearings, the jury trial, and a professional advocate that had never existed in Russia. However, there were also problems, as certain obsolete institutions were not covered by the reform. Also, the reform was hindered by extrajudicial punishment, introduced on a widespread scale during the reigns of his successors – Alexander III and Nicholas II.[15][16][17]

Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan.[edit]
The Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan (JRC) was launched by the Government of South Sudan on 28 July 2022 to review laws, and to advise on judicial reforms and restructuring of the judiciary.[18]

2023 Israeli judicial reform

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from 2023 Israeli judicial reform.[edit]
The 2023 Israeli judicial reform is a set of five changes to the judicial system and the balance of powers in Israel that was proposed in January 2023. The intent of the measures is to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review, granting the government control over judicial appointments and limiting the authority of its legal advisors.[19] The effort was led by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and the Chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, Simcha Rothman.

2024 Mexican judicial reform

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from 2024 Mexican judicial reform.[edit]

The 2024 Mexican judicial reform is a series of constitutional amendments that restructured the judiciary of Mexico.[20] The reform replaced Mexico's appointment-based system for selecting judges with one where judges, pre-selected by Congress, are elected by popular vote, with each judge serving a renewable nine-year term. It reduces the number of Supreme Court justices from 11 to 9 and limits their terms to 12 years. The reform also allows the use of "faceless" judges and establishes a new tribunal for judicial oversight and accountability, while significantly reducing benefits and salaries previously received by members of the judiciary.[21][22] With its passing, Mexico became the first country to have elections for all judges.[23][24]

The reform was put forward by the governing coalition, led by the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), with the goal of eliminating corruption in the judiciary.[25] It faced significant resistance from opposition political parties, judicial workers, and international organizations, who argued that it threatened judicial independence.[26][27] It sparked nationwide protests and strikes, even leading to the storming of the Senate on the day of the bill's vote.[28][29]

Protests against Polish judiciary reforms

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Protests against Polish judiciary reforms.[edit]
Since 2017, a series of protests against judiciary reforms have occurred in Poland. Since Law and Justice took power in Poland in 2015, its influence rapidly extended to the judicial branch, through contended nominations that produced the 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis. The Law and Justice party argues that the reforms are needed to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, but the opposition, supported by a significant number of members of the judiciary, has been very critical of the reforms. The reforms have also been criticized by a number of international bodies.[30][31] The European Commission invokes the Article 7 of the European Treaty against E.U. member Poland, denouncing recent judiciary reforms putting it under the political control of the ruling majority and citing "serious risk [to] the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers".[32][33][34]

Romanian judicial reform

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Romanian judicial reform.[edit]
Recent decades have seen a surge in the birth of "supraterritorial institutions and associations",[35] that have been gathered by their enactment of common law and practices. European Union's regional expansion into Southeastern Europe to include Romania is one such example. The community of European states has enacted treaties that have allowed them to unite politically and economically.

Scotland: Judicial reform 2012 - 2015

[edit]

The Period 2012 - 2015 is the period of the Lord Presidency of Lord Gill whose agenda was to overhaul and modernise a failing judicial system.[36] His initial Report dated from 2009, and followed a lengthy public consultation. His opinion was that the system as it stood was "outdated, expensive, unpredictable and inefficient."[37] The principal statutory changes were contained in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

Judicial reform in Ukraine

[edit]
These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial reform in Ukraine.[edit]
The reform was launched in 2014 after the Revolution of Dignity and the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election. The purpose of the reform is to bring the judiciary of Ukraine to European standards and to ensure the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens through timely, effective and fair resolution of legal disputes on the basis of the rule of law.[38]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Peter Barenboim, Natalya Merkulova. "The 25th Anniversary of Constitutional Economics: The Russian Model and Legal Reform in Russia, in The World Rule of Law Movement and Russian Legal Reform", edited by Francis Neate and Holly Nielsen, Justitsinform, Moscow (2007).
  2. ^ Melcarne, Alessandro; Ramello, Giovanni B.; Spruk, Rok (2021). "Is justice delayed justice denied? An empirical approach". International Review of Law and Economics. 65: 105953. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105953.
  3. ^ European Parliament, Council and Commission, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012
  4. ^ Feldman, David (1990). "Democracy, the Rule of Law and Judicial Review". Federal Law Review. 19 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1177/0067205X9001900101. ISSN 0067-205X.
  5. ^ "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy". 78 Geo. L. J. 281 (1989-1990).
  6. ^ "Judiciary Act of 1789". Library of Congress. Retrieved September 23, 2018.
  7. ^ "History of the Federal Judiciary". Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  8. ^ "1789 Judiciary Act". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  9. ^ "U.S. Marshals Service, History, The Judiciary Act of 1789". United States Marshals Service. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  10. ^ White, G. Edward (2012). Law in American History, Volume 1: From the Colonial Years Through the Civil War. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0190634940. Retrieved January 16, 2022.
  11. ^ "Federal Judiciary Act (1789)". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  12. ^ Parrish, Michael E. (2002). The Hughes Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc. p. 24. ISBN 9781576071977. Retrieved October 31, 2013.
  13. ^ Epstein, at 451.
  14. ^ Leuchtenburg, at 115ff.
  15. ^ Wortman, Richard (2005). "Russian monarchy and the rule of law: New considerations of the court reform of 1864". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 6 (1): 145–170. doi:10.1515/9781618118547-004. ISBN 9781618118547. S2CID 243309132.
  16. ^ Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. (1984). A History of Russia (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 377. ISBN 978-0-19-503361-8 – via Internet Archive. The reform of the judiciary which was largely the work of the Minister of Justice Dmitry Zamyatin, his extremely important assistant Serge Zarudny, and several other enlightened officials, proved to be the most successful of the 'great reforms'. Almost overnight it transformed the Russian judiciary from one of the worst to one of the best in the civilized world. / Later the government tried on occasion to influence judges for political reasons, and, what is more important, in its struggle against radicalism and revolution it began to withdraw whole categories of legal eases from the normal procedure of 1864 and to subject them to various forms of the courts martial. But, while the reform of the judiciary could be restricted in application, it could not be undone by the imperial government, and, as far as the reform extended, modem justice replaced arbitrariness and confusion. Russian legal reform followed Western, especially French, models, but, as Kucherov and others have demonstrated, these models were skillfully adapted to Russian needs It might be added that the courts, as well as the zemstvo institutions, acquired political significance, for they served as centers of public interest and enjoyed a somewhat greater freedom of expression than was generally allowed in Russia.
  17. ^ Vernadsky, George (1969). "Chapter 10: The Russian Empire in the Second Half of the 19th Century". A History of Russia (6th rev. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 221. ISBN 0-300-00247-5. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Google Books. Of no less significance was the judicial reform of 1864, of which Serge Zarudny was the chief promoter. Its basic points were the improvement of court procedure, introduction of the jury system and justices of the peace, and the organization of lawyers into a formal bar. The new courts proved equitable and efficient, and in this respect Russia could be compared favorably with the most progressive European countries. ... Most of the characteristics created by the reforms of Alexander II lasted until 1905, and some until 1917.
  18. ^ Evelyn Edroma (30 August 2022), South Sudan's Judicial Reform Committee Heralds Hope for the Justice Sector, UNDP, retrieved 2023-09-25
  19. ^ Sharon, Jeremy (11 January 2023). "Levin unveils bills to remove nearly all High Court's tools for government oversight". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2023.
  20. ^ "Mexico's planned judicial reform is 'major risk' to democracy, says US ambassador". Reuters. 22 August 2024. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 6 September 2024.
  21. ^ Staff, Forbes (2024-09-11). "Estas son cinco claves para entender la polémica reforma judicial de López Obrador y Sheinbaum". Forbes México (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-09-12.
  22. ^ López, Alejandro I. (2024-09-04). "¿Qué dice la reforma judicial y cuál es el camino para su aprobación?". El País México (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-09-09.
  23. ^ "Mexico becomes first country to approve popular election of judges". ABC News (Australia). 2024-09-11. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  24. ^ "Mexico's Senate passes judicial reform after protesters break into chamber". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 16 September 2024. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  25. ^ Jiménez, Néstor; Olivares, Emir (2024-09-10). "Niega AMLO que se pretenda "dinamitar"; "limpiar de corrupción beneficiará a empresas"". La Jornada (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 2024-09-13.
  26. ^ "IACHR expresses concerns over judiciary reform in Mexico and warns of threats to judicial independence, access to justice, and rule of law". Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 2024-09-13.
  27. ^ "México adopta la elección popular de jueces pese a las advertencias sobre el daño a la justicia". France 24. 2024-09-10. Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 2024-09-13.
  28. ^ Romero, Simon; Rodríguez Mega, Emiliano (19 August 2024). "Mexico's Judges Vote to Strike, Opposing Overhaul of Legal System". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 August 2024. Retrieved 27 August 2024.
  29. ^ "Protesters storm Mexican senate, forcing pause on judicial reform debate". CTVNews. 2024-09-10. Archived from the original on 10 September 2024. Retrieved 2024-09-10.
  30. ^ "Judges From Across Europe March to Defend Polish Peers Against Controversial Legislation". Time. Archived from the original on January 11, 2020. Retrieved 2020-01-22.
  31. ^ "Poland: Thousands protest government proposal to punish judges | DW | 18.12.2019". DW.COM. Retrieved 2020-01-22.
  32. ^ "L'Europe déclenche une procédure sans précédent contre le gouvernement polonais". LeMonde.fr. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 26 December 2017.
  33. ^ "Poland Overhauls Judiciary, Escalating Clash With E.U." nytimes.com. 20 December 2017.
  34. ^ "Poland cries foul as EU triggers 'nuclear option' over judicial independence". theguardian.com. 20 December 2017.
  35. ^ Manfred Steger, Globalization: A very short introduction, p. 64
  36. ^ See under "Reforms to the Scottish Courts system" in Lord Gill
  37. ^ Senior judge hits out at 'Victorian' Scots courts The Scotsman, by the Newsroom, 8 May 2009
  38. ^ Цілі, критерії, план дій. Якою є стратегія судової реформи? Archived 2018-12-21 at the Wayback Machine // sudovareforma.org
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judicial_reform&oldid=1249773635"