Mapping Judicial Independence
Identifieur interne : 002765 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 002764; suivant : 002766Mapping Judicial Independence
Auteurs : Micah B. Rankin [Canada]Source :
- Global Journal of Comparative Law [ 2211-9051 ] ; 2013.
Descripteurs français
- Wicri :
- topic : Garantie, Contrôle juridictionnel.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- American journal, Cambridge university press, Comparative purposes, Comparative taxonomy, Constitutional guarantees, Decisional independence, Definitional problems, Dependent judiciary, Entrenchment, Entrenchment criterion, Formal guarantees, Functional separation, Ginsburg, Global, Global journal, Guarantee, Hirschl, Ibid, Independence model, Independent judges, Independent judiciary, Individual judges, Institutionalisation, Institutionalisation criterion, Italian constitution, John ferejohn, Judicial, Judicial independence, Judicial review, Judiciary, Legal stud, National congress, Normative, Other branches, Other organs, Para, Peerenboom, Qualitative taxonomy, Randall peerenboom, Robust, Several models, Specific guarantees, Supreme court, Taxonomy, Textual guarantees.
- Teeft :
- American journal, Cambridge university press, Comparative purposes, Comparative taxonomy, Constitutional guarantees, Decisional independence, Definitional problems, Dependent judiciary, Entrenchment, Entrenchment criterion, Formal guarantees, Functional separation, Ginsburg, Global, Global journal, Guarantee, Hirschl, Ibid, Independence model, Independent judges, Independent judiciary, Individual judges, Institutionalisation, Institutionalisation criterion, Italian constitution, John ferejohn, Judicial, Judicial independence, Judicial review, Judiciary, Legal stud, National congress, Normative, Other branches, Other organs, Para, Peerenboom, Qualitative taxonomy, Randall peerenboom, Robust, Several models, Specific guarantees, Supreme court, Taxonomy, Textual guarantees.
Abstract
Judicial independence is increasingly viewed as a sine qua non of democratic constitutionalism. But in spite of a widespread consensus on the importance of having an independent judiciary, debates about the meaning of judicial independence persist in the literature. For scholars interested in comparative constitutional law, the uncertainty surrounding the definition of judicial independence is particularly vexing and raises several challenging questions: is there a universal set of conditions necessary for judicial independence? Or are there perhaps several models of a judicial independence? One issue that arises from these various questions is whether it is possible to develop a taxonomy of judicial independence. Although taxonomies inevitably produce an incomplete picture of the objects they classify, a taxonomy can assist comparative law scholars by providing an analytical framework for comparison. In Part 1 of this paper, the author explores the conceptual problems associated with finding a universal definition of judicial independence, arguing that there is no single, satisfactory definition of judicial independence. In Part 2 of the paper, the author addresses some of the methodological problems associated with developing a qualitative taxonomy. This is followed by a discussion of the organizing criteria that will be used to construct the four models of judicial independence found in the author’s proposed taxonomy.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/2211906X-00201001
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 005036
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 005036
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000317
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 002776
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 002765
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Mapping Judicial Independence</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Rankin, Micah B" sort="Rankin, Micah B" uniqKey="Rankin M" first="Micah B." last="Rankin">Micah B. Rankin</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A0737AFBC642D56ABDF2760A813C908A295ADBAF</idno>
<date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1163/2211906X-00201001</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A0737AFBC642D56ABDF2760A813C908A295ADBAF/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005036</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005036</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">005036</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000317</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000317</idno>
<idno type="wicri:doubleKey">2211-9051:2013:Rankin M:mapping:judicial:independence</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">002776</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">002765</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">002765</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Mapping Judicial Independence</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Rankin, Micah B" sort="Rankin, Micah B" uniqKey="Rankin M" first="Micah B." last="Rankin">Micah B. Rankin</name>
<affiliation></affiliation>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">Canada</country>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Global Journal of Comparative Law</title>
<title level="j" type="abbrev">GJCL</title>
<idno type="ISSN">2211-9051</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">2211-906X</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher>
<pubPlace>Leiden</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2013">2013</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="1">1</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="26">26</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">2211-9051</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">2211-9051</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>American journal</term>
<term>Cambridge university press</term>
<term>Comparative purposes</term>
<term>Comparative taxonomy</term>
<term>Constitutional guarantees</term>
<term>Decisional independence</term>
<term>Definitional problems</term>
<term>Dependent judiciary</term>
<term>Entrenchment</term>
<term>Entrenchment criterion</term>
<term>Formal guarantees</term>
<term>Functional separation</term>
<term>Ginsburg</term>
<term>Global</term>
<term>Global journal</term>
<term>Guarantee</term>
<term>Hirschl</term>
<term>Ibid</term>
<term>Independence model</term>
<term>Independent judges</term>
<term>Independent judiciary</term>
<term>Individual judges</term>
<term>Institutionalisation</term>
<term>Institutionalisation criterion</term>
<term>Italian constitution</term>
<term>John ferejohn</term>
<term>Judicial</term>
<term>Judicial independence</term>
<term>Judicial review</term>
<term>Judiciary</term>
<term>Legal stud</term>
<term>National congress</term>
<term>Normative</term>
<term>Other branches</term>
<term>Other organs</term>
<term>Para</term>
<term>Peerenboom</term>
<term>Qualitative taxonomy</term>
<term>Randall peerenboom</term>
<term>Robust</term>
<term>Several models</term>
<term>Specific guarantees</term>
<term>Supreme court</term>
<term>Taxonomy</term>
<term>Textual guarantees</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>American journal</term>
<term>Cambridge university press</term>
<term>Comparative purposes</term>
<term>Comparative taxonomy</term>
<term>Constitutional guarantees</term>
<term>Decisional independence</term>
<term>Definitional problems</term>
<term>Dependent judiciary</term>
<term>Entrenchment</term>
<term>Entrenchment criterion</term>
<term>Formal guarantees</term>
<term>Functional separation</term>
<term>Ginsburg</term>
<term>Global</term>
<term>Global journal</term>
<term>Guarantee</term>
<term>Hirschl</term>
<term>Ibid</term>
<term>Independence model</term>
<term>Independent judges</term>
<term>Independent judiciary</term>
<term>Individual judges</term>
<term>Institutionalisation</term>
<term>Institutionalisation criterion</term>
<term>Italian constitution</term>
<term>John ferejohn</term>
<term>Judicial</term>
<term>Judicial independence</term>
<term>Judicial review</term>
<term>Judiciary</term>
<term>Legal stud</term>
<term>National congress</term>
<term>Normative</term>
<term>Other branches</term>
<term>Other organs</term>
<term>Para</term>
<term>Peerenboom</term>
<term>Qualitative taxonomy</term>
<term>Randall peerenboom</term>
<term>Robust</term>
<term>Several models</term>
<term>Specific guarantees</term>
<term>Supreme court</term>
<term>Taxonomy</term>
<term>Textual guarantees</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Garantie</term>
<term>Contrôle juridictionnel</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract">Judicial independence is increasingly viewed as a sine qua non of democratic constitutionalism. But in spite of a widespread consensus on the importance of having an independent judiciary, debates about the meaning of judicial independence persist in the literature. For scholars interested in comparative constitutional law, the uncertainty surrounding the definition of judicial independence is particularly vexing and raises several challenging questions: is there a universal set of conditions necessary for judicial independence? Or are there perhaps several models of a judicial independence? One issue that arises from these various questions is whether it is possible to develop a taxonomy of judicial independence. Although taxonomies inevitably produce an incomplete picture of the objects they classify, a taxonomy can assist comparative law scholars by providing an analytical framework for comparison. In Part 1 of this paper, the author explores the conceptual problems associated with finding a universal definition of judicial independence, arguing that there is no single, satisfactory definition of judicial independence. In Part 2 of the paper, the author addresses some of the methodological problems associated with developing a qualitative taxonomy. This is followed by a discussion of the organizing criteria that will be used to construct the four models of judicial independence found in the author’s proposed taxonomy.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<affiliations><list><country><li>Canada</li>
</country>
</list>
<tree><country name="Canada"><noRegion><name sortKey="Rankin, Micah B" sort="Rankin, Micah B" uniqKey="Rankin M" first="Micah B." last="Rankin">Micah B. Rankin</name>
</noRegion>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002765 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 002765 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Santé |area= EdenteV2 |flux= Main |étape= Exploration |type= RBID |clé= ISTEX:A0737AFBC642D56ABDF2760A813C908A295ADBAF |texte= Mapping Judicial Independence }}
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. | ![]() |