Tools & Resources
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Publication
Report/Paper
Global Best Practices: Judicial Councils: Lessons Learned from Europe and Latin America
The Judicial Council, like the judiciary itself, is an important institution that should be structured and operate in a transparent, accountable manner. This is one of the key findings of this research paper and an important lesson learned from past reform efforts around the world. While Judicial Councils are often heralded by reformers and donors as institutions likely to contribute to the strengthening of judicial independence, another key finding of our research is that they may serve more as a barrier than as an avenue to judicial independence and accountability, particularly in countries where corruption is systemic or the judiciary is controlled by the executive. This paper studies the existence and functioning of Judicial Councils in light of the international, regional and national principles on judicial independence and integrity and of the overarching goal of promoting a Rule of Law culture around the world. In order to present a comprehensive picture of Judicial Councils, the paper addresses a variety of themes, including (i) the rationale for their creation; (ii) the different models and how they respond to country-specific needs; (iii) membership variations from country to country; and (iv) the most relevant attributions and responsibilities. The paper also raises some questions about the legitimacy and role of Judicial Councils within the broader structure of powers in a democratic State governed by the Rule of Law. Finally, some reflections on judicial education, policy functions and the relationship between the Judicial Council and the courts are included.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Global Best Practices: Judicial Integrity Standards and Consensus Principles
International and regional human rights treaties recognize the right to a fair trial by an independent tribunal in the determination of rights and obligations in civil, commercial and administrative matters and in the determination of criminal charges. The right to a fair trial and its core components, including the “reasonable time” requirement and the principle of judicial independence, is now universally accepted. Building upon the declarations of principle of legally binding conventions, international and regional expert guidelines and principles have aimed at fleshing out the specific elements of judicial independence. In addition, international and regional human rights courts and commissions have interpreted the provisions of human rights treaties and shed some light on the minimum standards and components of the right to a fair trial and judicial independence. IFES has synthesized these various efforts into set of core, consensus principles and best practices that can be used to assess systematically the degree of independence of judiciaries worldwide: the Judicial Integrity Principles [JIP]. In designing the JIP, IFES has chosen a broad definition of the notion of “judicial integrity”. This term covers a wide range of issues related to the independence and accountability of the judiciary, both the institution and the judges as individual decision-makers. IFES has chosen this broad definition of the notion of “judicial integrity” to emphasize the importance of balance the independence and accountability issues and to identify in a systematic way related reforms that need to be undertaken.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Regional Best Practices: Enforcement of Court Judgments: Lessons Learned from Latin America
Only recently has a general global consensus emerged among development specialists that the successful, fair and effective enforcement of court judgments, both those against private parties in commercial transactions as well as those against state agencies or officials, is of critical importance to developing a Rule of Law culture and judicial independence.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Global Best Practices: A Model State of the Judiciary Report. A Strategic Tool for Promoting, Monitoring and Reporting on Judicial Integrity Reforms
One of the best ways to promote the implementation of key, priority judicial reforms, particularly those that relate to transparency and accountability in the judiciary, is to democratize the judiciary by providing the public with quality information on the state of the judiciary through annual, systematic, prioritized monitoring and reporting tools. The IFES global research survey revealed that no country, judiciary or organization undertakes this kind of analysis or strategic approach to judicial reform. Bearing this in mind, IFES has designed a set of eighteen, core Judicial Integrity Principles (JIP) and a model framework to regularly report on the State of the Judiciary and to monitor and compare progress on a set of prioritized principles on a country-by-country and a regional basis. The JIP represent high priority consensus principles and emerging best practices found in virtually all global and regional governmental and non-governmental instruments and key international case law related to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. They attempt to capture the current state-of-the-art meaning of the term “judicial independence” and to incorporate and build upon the information and monitoring tools developed by other organizations and individuals. The State of the Judiciary Report framework revolves around the analysis of the level of compliance with each of the JIP within a specific country context. Among other things, this framework and the country and regional Reports should enable donors, jurists, experts and reformers to (i) identify and implement key reforms within a holistic framework; (ii) develop a short and long term strategy and comprehensive reform program; and (iii) measure reform progress on an on-going basis. With regard to the latter, we hope that the framework and the corresponding indicators included in this paper will help countries demonstrate that concrete progress is being made to create and support the establishment of a viable, independent judiciary, which is essential to ruling justly, addressing corruption and creating a Rule of Law culture. We invite your comments.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Global Best Practices: Constitutional Courts, Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law
In recent years, countries around the world have signed on to various governmental and nongovernmental international and regional instruments designed to fight corruption at all levels of the state. Income and asset disclosure laws and policies have emerged as important mechanisms to promote probity and accountability in the fight against corruption.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Global Best Practices: Income and Asset Disclosure Requirement for Judges: Lessons Learned from Eastern Europe and Latin America
In recent years, countries around the world have signed on to various governmental and nongovernmental international and regional instruments designed to fight corruption at all levels of the State. Income and asset disclosure laws and policies have emerged as important mechanisms to promote probity and accountability in the fight against corruption. While these requirements were first imposed on the executive branch, they now are accepted as applying to members of the legislative and judicial branches as well. Income and asset disclosure, if properly designed and effectively applied, can also be an invaluable tool to strengthen judicial accountability, judicial independence and public trust in the judiciary and the Rule of Law. This paper provides a comparative overview of financial transparency for judges by testing the legal framework and practice in six Eastern European and Latin American countries against a set of core international best practices that have recently emerged.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave I though Wave IX (March 28, 2004)
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, other 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave IX survey was conducted nationally with 1250 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, Waves V through VIII combined, and Wave IX reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data in Waves I, II, and IX is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is 1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, and Waves V through VIII surveys, is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave IX survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave IX survey.
March 27, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave V through VIII (March 26, 2004)
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1,250 respondents (per wave) selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations with 1,000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in a quarter of the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4,000 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, and Waves V through VIII combined reflects the rural/urban, male/female and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data in Waves I and II is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is 1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, and Waves III-IV surveys is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave V through Wave VIII surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave V through Wave VIII surveys.
March 25, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave I through IV
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1,250 respondents (per wave) selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations with 1,000 respondents. • The composition of the Wave I and II data reflects the rural/urban, men/women and interprovincial proportions of the Indonesian population. The combined data from Waves III and IV also reflect these proportions. • The margin of error for the national data in Waves I and II is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Wave III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. • In this report, data from the Wave I and Wave II surveys is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave III and Wave IV surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave III and Wave IV surveys.
February 29, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave I through II
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents, selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. • The composition of the survey sample in each survey reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for national data for both surveys is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. • In this report, data from the Wave I survey is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave II survey.
January 31, 2004