This book consists of general reports of the International Conference on Judicial Management from Comparative Perspective. This conference held on November 8–10, 2017, at Tianjin University, was organized by China Law Society (CLS) and International Association of Procedural Law Congress (IAPL). The general reporters are prominent scholars who have been selected worldwide by the IAPL Presidium to organize national reporters who shall do researches of his/her own state under the guide of the general reporter’s questionnaire on the specific subject. By this way, the comparative studies are trying to depend on national researches but overcome the general style of “talk past each other.” Moreover, the general reports summarize and give comment on the various system, phenomena or situation from comparative perspective, from which the audience will read their own orientation, doctrines and theories.

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

World Bank Technical Paper no. 430.QUOTEMany countries are undertaking legal and judicial reforms as part of their overall development programs; there is increasing recognition that economic and social progress requires consolidation of democracy as well as respect for the rule of law and human rights; without these development is not sustainable.QUOTEMany developing countries find that their judiciaries are inconsistent in conflict resolution and carry a large backlog of cases, thus stifling private-sector growth, eroding individual and property rights, and perhaps even violating human rights. Delays affect both the fairness and the efficiency of the system. They impede the public's access to the courts, which, in effect, weakens democracies, the rule of law and the ability to enforce human rights. This paper aims to describe and explain the performance of court systems in a sample of developing and developed countries in order to provide data to those designing or evaluating reforms. The study also seeks to show areas in which international comparison of judicial performance can be fruitful, suggesting indicators that can be used in such comparisons. Finally, it endeavors to provide comparisons of performance within individual countries over time.

Discusses judicial control of foreign evidence in comparative perspective

An independent and impartial judiciary is fundamental to the existence and operation of a liberal democracy. Focussing on Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, this comparative 2011 study explores four major issues affecting the judicial institution. These issues relate to the appointment and discipline of judges; judges and freedom of speech; the performance of non-judicial functions by judges; and judicial bias and recusal, and each is set within the context of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The essays highlight important episodes or controversies affecting members of the judiciary to illustrate relevant principles.

This book is the first application of the comparative method to the analysis of both the basic features of judicial process and their evolution and profound transformation in Europe and America. Cappelletti discusses the challenges facing the courts of justice and other adjudicatory agencies, and evaluates the solutions adopted by contemporary legal systems.

The theme of this book is judicial activism in industrialized democracies, with a chapter on the changing political roles of the courts in the Soviet Union. Eleven contributors describe the extent to which the highest courts in their country of expertise have embraced the making of public policy.