The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges

In this Article, I will discuss domestic and international law as they relate to judicial independence, and how their interrelationship impacts judicial independence in both arenas. I will also note current challenges to judicial independence, on both practical and theoretical levels, and suggest some appropriate solutions. Section I reviews the three phases of judicial independence, using England as a case study. Section II considers fundamental concepts surrounding judicial independence: models, principles, and constitutionalism. It is important to review these normative concepts in order to create a common language of judicial independence. Section III explores challenges to judicial independence, both past and present. Section IV analyzes the response to these challenges: the creation of a culture of judicial independence. Section V evaluates the different components that have been, and that continue to be, critical to the culture of judicial independence. Cultures of judicial independence are built on both the domestic and international fronts, and in their more advanced stages consist of a combination of national and international law and jurisprudence. Section VI examines how the interrelationships between domestic law, international human rights law, and professional international standards have had a normative effect on the culture of judicial independence over its three phases. Particular attention is paid to England, the US, Austria, and Canada, with special reference where appropriate to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( ECHR ), and the UK\u27s Human Rights Act and Constitutional Reforms Act. This Article concludes with a look to the future

Negotiations and Agreements Are Better Than Legal Resolutions: A Response to Professor John Quigley

commentar

Time Standards for Justice

The machinery of justice is under great pressures both popular and professional to expedite justice. While the attainment of expeditious justice is a generally accepted goal, the meaning of expeditious justice is unsettled and ambiguous. The struggle for expediting justice may have a limited significance if the goal is expressed in ambiguous and general terms. Hence it is important to go beyond the words, to establish standards for expeditious justice and as far as practicable, to express them in numerical terms. The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible reference points for measuring court delay and to discuss the numerical standards of expeditious justice

Time Standards for Justice

The machinery of justice is under great pressures both popular and professional to expedite justice. While the attainment of expeditious justice is a generally accepted goal, the meaning of expeditious justice is unsettled and ambiguous. The struggle for expediting justice may have a limited significance if the goal is expressed in ambiguous and general terms. Hence it is important to go beyond the words, to establish standards for expeditious justice and as far as practicable, to express them in numerical terms. The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible reference points for measuring court delay and to discuss the numerical standards of expeditious justice

The peace process in the Middle East : personal politics, national interests, & global powers in the aftermath of Sept. 11th

Presented as a special lecture at the Franklin Thomas Backus School of Law and sponsored by the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center on February 11, 200