File #2496: "2018_Book_HowToMeasureTheQualityOfJudici.pdf"
Testo
1|Contents|6
1|Editors and Contributors|8
1|1 Measuring the Unmeasurable?|10
2|Abstract|10
2|1 Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|11
2|2 Country Studies: A Comparative Experience|19
2|3 Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning in Supranational Courts|26
2|4 Conclusion|30
2|References|31
1|2 Judging and the Ethical Life|33
2|Abstract|33
2|1 Introduction|33
2|2 The Unjust Judge|34
3|2.1 The Anxious Judge|34
3|2.2 The Judge in the Middle|35
3|2.3 Forgetting the Widow|35
3|2.4 Escape into Rules|36
3|2.5 The Judge Disappears|36
3|2.6 The Widow Disappears|37
2|3 Moral Machines|37
3|3.1 Robojudge|37
3|3.2 The Kantian Saint|38
3|3.3 Hard Cases Make Bad Law|39
2|4 Confronting the Widow|39
3|4.1 Domesticating the Particular|39
3|4.2 The Anxiety of the Particular|40
3|4.3 Listening to the Particular|40
2|5 In the Judgement Space|41
3|5.1 The Particularity Void|41
3|5.2 Masters of Law|41
3|5.3 Attention|43
3|5.4 At Homeness: Insight and the Hunch|44
2|6 Conclusion|45
3|6.1 At the Limits of Language|45
3|6.2 Beyond Text|46
3|6.3 The Judge and the Ethical Life|47
2|References|48
1|3 How to Measure? An Essay on the Social Context of Measuring Quality|50
2|Abstract|50
2|1 The Nature of Judicial Work|50
2|2 Justice or Right?|51
2|3 Measurement as Control|54
2|4 Quality Control?|57
2|5 The Context of Measuring Judges|60
2|References|61
1|4 Judicial Reasoning from the Perspective of Behavioural Law and Economics|63
2|Abstract|63
2|1 Introduction|63
2|2 The Quality of Judicial Decision-Making and Its Limits—The Impact of Heuristics and Biases on Adjudication|64
2|3 Adjudication Under the Shadow of Emotions|72
2|4 Conclusion|76
2|Acknowledgements|76
2|References|77
1|5 Quality of Justice and Lay Participation in the Light of &!blank;Scientific Studies|79
2|Abstract|79
2|1 Introduction|79
2|2 The Importance of Lay Participation in the 21st Century|81
3|2.1 Lay Justice as a Means of Self-governance in Democratic Societies|83
2|3 Lay Participation in Dispensing Justice as a Means of Strengthening the Legitimacy of Justice|87
2|4 Lay Persons as Fact-Finders|88
2|5 Control Function|89
2|6 Conclusions|90
2|Acknowledgements|91
2|References|91
1|6 Obstacles and Opportunities—Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|93
2|Abstract|93
2|1 Introduction|93
2|2 Why Reasoning?|95
2|3 Standards of the Evaluation|97
2|4 Who Measures?|100
2|5 How to Measure?|102
3|5.1 The Direct Form of Evaluation|103
3|5.2 Indirect Quality Assessment|103
2|6 Conclusion|106
2|References|106
1|7 Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales|108
2|Abstract|108
2|1 Introduction|108
2|2 Role of the Judge in England and Wales|109
2|3 Standards of Judicial Reasoning: ‘The Pull of Justification’|111
3|3.1 Why Give Reasons?|112
3|3.2 How to Give Reasons?|113
2|4 Skills and Knowledge: Judges as Professionals and Measuring the Standards|116
3|4.1 Merit-Based Appointments and Judicial Skill|117
3|4.2 Quality of Judicial Reasoning at the Supreme Court|118
3|4.3 Quality Standards and Judicial Reasoning: Administrative Tribunals|121
2|5 Other Factors Affecting the Quality of Judicial Reasons|123
2|6 Conclusions|124
2|Acknowledgements|125
2|References|125
1|8 Quality of Justice and of Judicial Reasoning in Italy|127
2|Abstract|127
2|1 The Question of the Quality of Justice in Italy|127
2|2 Judicial Governance and Organisational Quality|130
3|2.1 Court Presidents and Assignment of Cases|131
3|2.2 Court Managers|132
3|2.3 Judges|132
2|3 Legal Approaches|133
3|3.1 Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation|134
3|3.2 Judicial Argumentations|135
3|3.3 Inspectorate|137
2|4 Managerial Approaches: Court Performance and Statistical Measures|137
2|5 The Place of the Public: Surveys and Involvement of the Parties|138
2|6 New Approaches to Evaluate, Assure and Improve the Quality of Justice|139
2|7 Struggling for Quality in the Italian Justice Administration|142
2|References|142
1|9 The Quality of Adjudication in France|145
2|Abstract|145
2|1 Introduction|146
2|2 Overview of the Quality Assessment of Justice in France|147
2|3 Two Surveys on the Quality of Judgments|149
3|3.1 Survey Made in Paris 2009 by the 1st President Conte|150
3|3.2 An Investigation Conducted in France 2013–2015|152
2|4 How to Improve Quality of Judgment in France?|155
2|Acknowledgements|157
2|References|157
1|10 Quality of Legal Decisions: The Criteria Established by the Finnish Judiciary|159
2|Abstract|159
2|1 The Quality of Legal Decision-Making and Its Justification in the Finnish Legal Debate|159
3|1.1 General Remarks|159
3|1.2 The Rovaniemi Study|160
4|1.2.1 General Approach|160
4|1.2.2 Context, Aims and Method|161
4|1.2.3 General Elements of Quality|161
4|1.2.4 Specific Criteria of Quality of a Judgment|162
3|1.3 The Report of the Supreme Administrative Court 1996|163
3|1.4 Law, Recommendations and Policy-Documents Establishing Requirements for Judicial Argumentation|165
4|1.4.1 Constitution and Constitutional Control|165
4|1.4.2 Law Regarding Motivations|166
4|1.4.3 On the Administrative Law Specifically|166
3|1.5 Other Debates|167
4|1.5.1 Scholars|167
4|1.5.2 Other Discussion|169
4|1.5.3 European Courts|169
2|2 General Conclusions; ‘Substantive Quality Criteria’ for Legal Decisions|170
3|2.1 Some Analysis|170
3|2.2 The Final Discussion; the Role of Principles and the Quality of a Judgement|173
2|References|174
1|11 The Quality of Justice and of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|176
2|Abstract|176
2|1 Introduction|177
2|2 The Most Frequently Used Indicators for Evaluating Court Performance|178
3|2.1 The Concept of ‘Quality of Justice’ as Understood by Practitioners and Scholars|179
3|2.2 No Comprehensive Quality-Assurance System for Courts’ Activity|179
3|2.3 Criticism of the Quality of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|180
3|2.4 The Absence of Any Method Dedicated to Check the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|180
2|3 Legal Requirements on Judicial Argumentation and Scholarly Debate|182
2|4 Conclusions: Two Different Ideals of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|186
2|References|189
1|12 Methods of Quality Assessment of Judicial Reasoning in Hungary|190
2|Abstract|190
2|1 Introduction|191
2|2 Appeal Ratio|192
2|3 Personal Assessment|194
2|4 Stylebook for the Drafting of Judgments|195
2|5 The Effects of the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the HCC|200
2|6 Conclusion|206
2|References|207
1|13 Quality of Reasoning in International Criminal Tribunals|209
2|Abstract|209
2|1 Introduction|209
2|2 International Criminal Law at a Glance|211
2|3 The Legal Authority for the Issuing of Judgments|212
2|4 Format and Length of Judgments|214
2|5 Timeliness of Judgments|217
2|6 Separate and Dissenting Opinions|219
2|7 Accessibility of Judgments|220
2|8 Rules of Interpretation|221
2|9 Conclusions: Quality of Judicial Reasoning in International Criminal Courts|225
2|References|225
1|14 The Quality of Decision-Making at the Court of Justice of the European Union|227
2|Abstract|227
2|1 Introduction|228
2|2 The Concept of Quality of Decision-Making|228
2|3 Normative or Institutional Legitimacy|229
2|4 Epistemic Quality|231
2|5 Argumentative, Dialectical or Deliberative Quality|232
2|6 Consistency or Coherence|235
2|7 Moral and Consequentialist Quality|236
2|8 Jurisdictional Quality|237
3|8.1 Preliminary References|238
3|8.2 Enforcement Actions|239
3|8.3 Review of the EU Institutions|241
2|9 Impact of the Lisbon Treaty and Fiscal Compact|243
2|10 Recent Scholarship on the Court|244
2|11 The Broader Context of the Quality of Decision-Making by the Court of Justice|246
2|12 Conclusion|249
2|References|250
1|15 Reflections on Legal Reasoning in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights|253
2|Abstract|253
2|1 Introduction|253
2|2 The ‘Traditional’ Canons of Interpretation|256
2|3 Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation and Consensus|259
2|4 Adapting Judicial Strategies|264
2|5 Concluding Remarks|269
2|References|270
1|Editors and Contributors|8
1|1 Measuring the Unmeasurable?|10
2|Abstract|10
2|1 Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|11
2|2 Country Studies: A Comparative Experience|19
2|3 Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning in Supranational Courts|26
2|4 Conclusion|30
2|References|31
1|2 Judging and the Ethical Life|33
2|Abstract|33
2|1 Introduction|33
2|2 The Unjust Judge|34
3|2.1 The Anxious Judge|34
3|2.2 The Judge in the Middle|35
3|2.3 Forgetting the Widow|35
3|2.4 Escape into Rules|36
3|2.5 The Judge Disappears|36
3|2.6 The Widow Disappears|37
2|3 Moral Machines|37
3|3.1 Robojudge|37
3|3.2 The Kantian Saint|38
3|3.3 Hard Cases Make Bad Law|39
2|4 Confronting the Widow|39
3|4.1 Domesticating the Particular|39
3|4.2 The Anxiety of the Particular|40
3|4.3 Listening to the Particular|40
2|5 In the Judgement Space|41
3|5.1 The Particularity Void|41
3|5.2 Masters of Law|41
3|5.3 Attention|43
3|5.4 At Homeness: Insight and the Hunch|44
2|6 Conclusion|45
3|6.1 At the Limits of Language|45
3|6.2 Beyond Text|46
3|6.3 The Judge and the Ethical Life|47
2|References|48
1|3 How to Measure? An Essay on the Social Context of Measuring Quality|50
2|Abstract|50
2|1 The Nature of Judicial Work|50
2|2 Justice or Right?|51
2|3 Measurement as Control|54
2|4 Quality Control?|57
2|5 The Context of Measuring Judges|60
2|References|61
1|4 Judicial Reasoning from the Perspective of Behavioural Law and Economics|63
2|Abstract|63
2|1 Introduction|63
2|2 The Quality of Judicial Decision-Making and Its Limits—The Impact of Heuristics and Biases on Adjudication|64
2|3 Adjudication Under the Shadow of Emotions|72
2|4 Conclusion|76
2|Acknowledgements|76
2|References|77
1|5 Quality of Justice and Lay Participation in the Light of &!blank;Scientific Studies|79
2|Abstract|79
2|1 Introduction|79
2|2 The Importance of Lay Participation in the 21st Century|81
3|2.1 Lay Justice as a Means of Self-governance in Democratic Societies|83
2|3 Lay Participation in Dispensing Justice as a Means of Strengthening the Legitimacy of Justice|87
2|4 Lay Persons as Fact-Finders|88
2|5 Control Function|89
2|6 Conclusions|90
2|Acknowledgements|91
2|References|91
1|6 Obstacles and Opportunities—Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|93
2|Abstract|93
2|1 Introduction|93
2|2 Why Reasoning?|95
2|3 Standards of the Evaluation|97
2|4 Who Measures?|100
2|5 How to Measure?|102
3|5.1 The Direct Form of Evaluation|103
3|5.2 Indirect Quality Assessment|103
2|6 Conclusion|106
2|References|106
1|7 Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales|108
2|Abstract|108
2|1 Introduction|108
2|2 Role of the Judge in England and Wales|109
2|3 Standards of Judicial Reasoning: ‘The Pull of Justification’|111
3|3.1 Why Give Reasons?|112
3|3.2 How to Give Reasons?|113
2|4 Skills and Knowledge: Judges as Professionals and Measuring the Standards|116
3|4.1 Merit-Based Appointments and Judicial Skill|117
3|4.2 Quality of Judicial Reasoning at the Supreme Court|118
3|4.3 Quality Standards and Judicial Reasoning: Administrative Tribunals|121
2|5 Other Factors Affecting the Quality of Judicial Reasons|123
2|6 Conclusions|124
2|Acknowledgements|125
2|References|125
1|8 Quality of Justice and of Judicial Reasoning in Italy|127
2|Abstract|127
2|1 The Question of the Quality of Justice in Italy|127
2|2 Judicial Governance and Organisational Quality|130
3|2.1 Court Presidents and Assignment of Cases|131
3|2.2 Court Managers|132
3|2.3 Judges|132
2|3 Legal Approaches|133
3|3.1 Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation|134
3|3.2 Judicial Argumentations|135
3|3.3 Inspectorate|137
2|4 Managerial Approaches: Court Performance and Statistical Measures|137
2|5 The Place of the Public: Surveys and Involvement of the Parties|138
2|6 New Approaches to Evaluate, Assure and Improve the Quality of Justice|139
2|7 Struggling for Quality in the Italian Justice Administration|142
2|References|142
1|9 The Quality of Adjudication in France|145
2|Abstract|145
2|1 Introduction|146
2|2 Overview of the Quality Assessment of Justice in France|147
2|3 Two Surveys on the Quality of Judgments|149
3|3.1 Survey Made in Paris 2009 by the 1st President Conte|150
3|3.2 An Investigation Conducted in France 2013–2015|152
2|4 How to Improve Quality of Judgment in France?|155
2|Acknowledgements|157
2|References|157
1|10 Quality of Legal Decisions: The Criteria Established by the Finnish Judiciary|159
2|Abstract|159
2|1 The Quality of Legal Decision-Making and Its Justification in the Finnish Legal Debate|159
3|1.1 General Remarks|159
3|1.2 The Rovaniemi Study|160
4|1.2.1 General Approach|160
4|1.2.2 Context, Aims and Method|161
4|1.2.3 General Elements of Quality|161
4|1.2.4 Specific Criteria of Quality of a Judgment|162
3|1.3 The Report of the Supreme Administrative Court 1996|163
3|1.4 Law, Recommendations and Policy-Documents Establishing Requirements for Judicial Argumentation|165
4|1.4.1 Constitution and Constitutional Control|165
4|1.4.2 Law Regarding Motivations|166
4|1.4.3 On the Administrative Law Specifically|166
3|1.5 Other Debates|167
4|1.5.1 Scholars|167
4|1.5.2 Other Discussion|169
4|1.5.3 European Courts|169
2|2 General Conclusions; ‘Substantive Quality Criteria’ for Legal Decisions|170
3|2.1 Some Analysis|170
3|2.2 The Final Discussion; the Role of Principles and the Quality of a Judgement|173
2|References|174
1|11 The Quality of Justice and of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|176
2|Abstract|176
2|1 Introduction|177
2|2 The Most Frequently Used Indicators for Evaluating Court Performance|178
3|2.1 The Concept of ‘Quality of Justice’ as Understood by Practitioners and Scholars|179
3|2.2 No Comprehensive Quality-Assurance System for Courts’ Activity|179
3|2.3 Criticism of the Quality of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|180
3|2.4 The Absence of Any Method Dedicated to Check the Quality of Judicial Reasoning|180
2|3 Legal Requirements on Judicial Argumentation and Scholarly Debate|182
2|4 Conclusions: Two Different Ideals of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic|186
2|References|189
1|12 Methods of Quality Assessment of Judicial Reasoning in Hungary|190
2|Abstract|190
2|1 Introduction|191
2|2 Appeal Ratio|192
2|3 Personal Assessment|194
2|4 Stylebook for the Drafting of Judgments|195
2|5 The Effects of the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the HCC|200
2|6 Conclusion|206
2|References|207
1|13 Quality of Reasoning in International Criminal Tribunals|209
2|Abstract|209
2|1 Introduction|209
2|2 International Criminal Law at a Glance|211
2|3 The Legal Authority for the Issuing of Judgments|212
2|4 Format and Length of Judgments|214
2|5 Timeliness of Judgments|217
2|6 Separate and Dissenting Opinions|219
2|7 Accessibility of Judgments|220
2|8 Rules of Interpretation|221
2|9 Conclusions: Quality of Judicial Reasoning in International Criminal Courts|225
2|References|225
1|14 The Quality of Decision-Making at the Court of Justice of the European Union|227
2|Abstract|227
2|1 Introduction|228
2|2 The Concept of Quality of Decision-Making|228
2|3 Normative or Institutional Legitimacy|229
2|4 Epistemic Quality|231
2|5 Argumentative, Dialectical or Deliberative Quality|232
2|6 Consistency or Coherence|235
2|7 Moral and Consequentialist Quality|236
2|8 Jurisdictional Quality|237
3|8.1 Preliminary References|238
3|8.2 Enforcement Actions|239
3|8.3 Review of the EU Institutions|241
2|9 Impact of the Lisbon Treaty and Fiscal Compact|243
2|10 Recent Scholarship on the Court|244
2|11 The Broader Context of the Quality of Decision-Making by the Court of Justice|246
2|12 Conclusion|249
2|References|250
1|15 Reflections on Legal Reasoning in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights|253
2|Abstract|253
2|1 Introduction|253
2|2 The ‘Traditional’ Canons of Interpretation|256
2|3 Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation and Consensus|259
2|4 Adapting Judicial Strategies|264
2|5 Concluding Remarks|269
2|References|270