Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Conflicts and Commonalities in Judicial Evaluation

By Richard Mohr and Francesco Contini


<p>This article explores the proper role of judicial evaluation in relation to the various branches of government and a range of disciplines. Judicial evaluation is a practical, interpretive sphere of inquiry, based on dialogue and collaboration. It must respect important shared values, based on human rights and dignity, responsible approaches to research, and the conservation of resources. After outlining two contrasting approaches, from the European Commission and from Sweden, the article considers the roles of politics and knowledge or science (broadly defined) in judicial evaluation. Then nine values are enunciated, based on the common heritage of courts, government and scientific research. In the practice of judicial evaluation, meaningful data must be collected, reported clearly and interpreted transparently in dialogue with stakeholders. Conclusions should be consistent with the shared values, derived from honest arguments and communicated effectively. Researchers should be impartial, treat participants with equal dignity and respect their rights to privacy. Judicial evaluation must be useful in improving the administration of justice, without wasting time or resources of the courts or researchers.</p> <hr /><p>Este art&iacute;culo analiza el papel correcto de la evaluaci&oacute;n judicial en relaci&oacute;n con los distintos poderes del Estado y una amplia gama de disciplinas. La evaluaci&oacute;n judicial es un &aacute;mbito de investigaci&oacute;n pr&aacute;ctico e interpretativo, basado en el di&aacute;logo y la colaboraci&oacute;n. Debe respetar importantes valores compartidos, basados en los derechos humanos y la dignidad, realizar un acercamiento responsable a la investigaci&oacute;n y la conservaci&oacute;n de recursos. Tras esbozar dos enfoques opuestos, de la Comisi&oacute;n Europea y de Suecia, el art&iacute;culo considera el rol de la pol&iacute;tica y el conocimiento o la ciencia (en sentido amplio) en la evaluaci&oacute;n judicial. A continuaci&oacute;n se enuncian nueve valores, basados en el patrimonio com&uacute;n de los tribunales, el gobierno y la investigaci&oacute;n cient&iacute;fica. En la pr&aacute;ctica de la evaluaci&oacute;n judicial, se deben recopilar los datos significativos, informar de ellos claramente e interpretarlos de forma transparente en di&aacute;logo con las partes interesadas. Las conclusiones deben ser coherentes con los valores compartidos, derivados de argumentos honestos y comunicados de manera efectiva. Los investigadores deben ser imparciales, tratar a los participantes con la misma dignidad y respetar sus derechos a la privacidad. La evaluaci&oacute;n judicial debe ser &uacute;til para mejorar la administraci&oacute;n de justicia, sin hacer perder tiempo ni recursos a los tribunales o investigadores.</p> <p><strong>DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN</strong>: <a href="" target="_blank"> </a></p

Topics: Judicial evaluation, performance studies, dialogue, values, Evaluación judicial, estudios de rendimiento, diálogo, valores, Social legislation, K7585-7595
Publisher: Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
Year: 2014
OAI identifier:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.