Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.

<p><em>We are grateful for the contribution of Stefan Voigt, Elaine Mak, David Kosař, Samuel Spáč, Ingo Keilitz and Marco Fabri to this Special Issue.  Their commentaries on the indicators for independence and accountability of the judiciary as developed for the ENCJ give many useful ide...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Frans van Dijk, Philip Langbroek
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: International Association for Court Administration 2018-12-01
Series:International Journal for Court Administration
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/283
_version_ 1818119412195000320
author Frans van Dijk
Philip Langbroek
author_facet Frans van Dijk
Philip Langbroek
author_sort Frans van Dijk
collection DOAJ
description <p><em>We are grateful for the contribution of Stefan Voigt, Elaine Mak, David Kosař, Samuel Spáč, Ingo Keilitz and Marco Fabri to this Special Issue.  Their commentaries on the indicators for independence and accountability of the judiciary as developed for the ENCJ give many useful ideas for future development. The comments also reflect the different disciplinary backgrounds of the authors and point to the need to position the ENCJ approach within the diverse disciplines that engage in the analysis of judicial independence. It is obvious that the approaches of the commenters on the ENCJ study differ widely. In economics the approach focuses on measuring independence for inclusion as variable in econometric models about, for instance, economic growth or protection of property rights. More (de-facto) independence enhances economic performance, but how more independence is to be achieved is not addressed.  From the perspective of performance management of organizations, independence is part of court performance for the clients and to some degree subservient to it. In a legal, descriptive approach, the situation in different countries is described in detail, also as a part of judicial culture. The ENCJ study only sets criteria for measuring judicial independence, and does not address performance measurement of courts and judges in general.</em></p>
first_indexed 2024-12-11T05:09:47Z
format Article
id doaj.art-99b254c32189457ca61a417e3e6f6f5f
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2156-7964
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T05:09:47Z
publishDate 2018-12-01
publisher International Association for Court Administration
record_format Article
series International Journal for Court Administration
spelling doaj.art-99b254c32189457ca61a417e3e6f6f5f2022-12-22T01:19:57ZengInternational Association for Court AdministrationInternational Journal for Court Administration2156-79642018-12-0193767810.18352/ijca.283244Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.Frans van Dijk0Philip Langbroek1Montaigne Centre, Utrecht School of LawMontaigne Centre, Utrecht School of Law<p><em>We are grateful for the contribution of Stefan Voigt, Elaine Mak, David Kosař, Samuel Spáč, Ingo Keilitz and Marco Fabri to this Special Issue.  Their commentaries on the indicators for independence and accountability of the judiciary as developed for the ENCJ give many useful ideas for future development. The comments also reflect the different disciplinary backgrounds of the authors and point to the need to position the ENCJ approach within the diverse disciplines that engage in the analysis of judicial independence. It is obvious that the approaches of the commenters on the ENCJ study differ widely. In economics the approach focuses on measuring independence for inclusion as variable in econometric models about, for instance, economic growth or protection of property rights. More (de-facto) independence enhances economic performance, but how more independence is to be achieved is not addressed.  From the perspective of performance management of organizations, independence is part of court performance for the clients and to some degree subservient to it. In a legal, descriptive approach, the situation in different countries is described in detail, also as a part of judicial culture. The ENCJ study only sets criteria for measuring judicial independence, and does not address performance measurement of courts and judges in general.</em></p>https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/283Performance management and MeasurementIndicator ConstructionJudicial Independence and Impartiality
spellingShingle Frans van Dijk
Philip Langbroek
Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
International Journal for Court Administration
Performance management and Measurement
Indicator Construction
Judicial Independence and Impartiality
title Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
title_full Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
title_fullStr Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
title_full_unstemmed Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
title_short Reaction on the comments on the ENCJ study on Method for Assessment of Judicial Independence and Accountability.
title_sort reaction on the comments on the encj study on method for assessment of judicial independence and accountability
topic Performance management and Measurement
Indicator Construction
Judicial Independence and Impartiality
url https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/283
work_keys_str_mv AT fransvandijk reactiononthecommentsontheencjstudyonmethodforassessmentofjudicialindependenceandaccountability
AT philiplangbroek reactiononthecommentsontheencjstudyonmethodforassessmentofjudicialindependenceandaccountability