How does judicial governance impacts management?
Best insight from top research papers
Judicial governance has a significant impact on management. The study by Calamunci reveals that the removal of criminal ties in Italian criminal firms through judicial administration leads to adverse effects on profitability and efficiency, as well as difficulty in establishing a new economic framework for these firms . Similarly, Akutsu and Guimarães discuss the chronic difficulties faced by the Brazilian justice system and propose evaluating the influence of strategic resources on judiciary performance, as well as the impact of increased judicial independence and accountability on reducing corruption . Additionally, Bunjevac's analysis of judge-managed courts highlights the emergence of new institutions of judicial self-governance and the need for further research on the regulation of these institutions . Overall, these studies demonstrate that judicial governance plays a crucial role in shaping the management and performance of judicial systems.
Answers from top 4 papers
More filters
| Papers (4) | Insight |
|---|---|
| The paper discusses the dimensions of judicial governance and how they can improve the performance of the Brazilian judicial system. However, it does not explicitly mention how judicial governance impacts management. | |
| The paper discusses the dimensions of judicial governance, such as judicial independence, accountability, and accessibility to justice, and how they can improve the performance of the Brazilian judicial system. However, it does not explicitly mention how judicial governance impacts management. | |
Open access•Posted Content 4 Citations | The paper does not directly address the impact of judicial governance on management. The paper focuses on the effects of judicial administration on the performance of criminal firms after the removal of godfather management. |
3 Citations | The paper does not directly address the impact of judicial governance on management. |
Related Questions
How does governance influences management of conservation strategies?5 answersGovernance plays a crucial role in shaping the management of conservation strategies by influencing decision-making processes, participation levels, and the inclusion of diverse knowledge systems. Different governance regimes impact the extent to which local Indigenous communities can pursue their conservation objectives, with Indigenous-driven co-governance regimes offering more opportunities for equitable participation. Additionally, the effectiveness of conservation principles in natural resource management is influenced by governance variability, trust, and adherence to institutional norms, with group identity, autonomy, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution principles perceived as most effective. Furthermore, the governance by spirits in sacred natural sites is highlighted as essential for protecting biodiversity, emphasizing the importance of a good relationship between humankind and spirits through ritual behavior for resource protection and blessings. Overall, governance frameworks significantly shape the success and sustainability of conservation strategies.
How do elections influence the courts?5 answersElections significantly impact judicial behavior in various ways. Studies show that U.S. Presidential elections polarize Courts of Appeals judges, leading to increased dissents, partisan voting, and lawmaking along party lines. Judicial decisions in election cases are influenced by partisanship, with judges sometimes ruling against their own party's interests based on case strength. Public opinion can affect judicial decisions, particularly in states where environmental issues have been the subject of campaign attack ads, indicating a potential reduction in judicial independence from public opinion. Additionally, the method of judicial retention, especially in relation to criminal cases and election cycles, can impact decisions at both trial court and Supreme Court levels.
Towards a New Judicial Management?5 answersTowards a new judicial management, there is a need to critically review the problems facing the judiciary in India and the euro-centric structure that contributes to these issues. Additionally, the emergence of new institutions of judicial self-governance, such as judicial councils and management boards, has been observed in Australia and other jurisdictions. The discussion on the management of the judiciary involves considering alternative approaches, such as co-production and the application of New Public Management and New Public Service principles. It is important to create a new branch of law that focuses on the study and application of management models for judicial offices. By including judicial officers in the debate and expediting the discussion, the true purpose of judicial management and the need for a new identity can be realized.
Relation between executive and judiciary?5 answersThe relationship between the executive and judiciary branches of government is a complex and dynamic one. In many cases, the executive branch has attempted to intrude into the domain of the judiciary, but the judiciary has sought to assert its independence and provide a deterrent against arbitrary exercise of power by the executive. This power struggle between the two branches is often fueled by issues such as securitization, border control, and human rights, as seen in cases involving irregular migration. The responses of public health officials to judicial decisions have also shaped drug distribution policies, highlighting the impact of the judiciary on executive actions. This struggle for control and the balance of power between the executive and judiciary is not unique to any particular government or political party, but rather a recurring theme throughout history. Overall, the relationship between the executive and judiciary is characterized by tensions, power struggles, and attempts by each branch to assert its authority and protect its interests.
What are the different ways that authoritarian regimes influence the judiciary?5 answersAuthoritarian regimes influence the judiciary in various ways. They may tolerate independent courts to portray a commitment to the rule of law, but also employ strategies to contain judicial power and limit the regime's power. Authoritarian leaders often treat law and courts as instrumental and try to keep judges dependent and responsive to their desires. They may develop judicial bureaucracies and cultivate apolitical judges to maintain control. In some cases, authoritarian regimes empower judges to gain legitimacy and keep officials accountable, but this can come at a cost to judicial independence. The judiciary's affinity to authoritarian regimes diminishes as audiences, such as institutions and networks, grow independent from the regime. When regime-judiciary relations are poor, increased political competition can lead to less judicial independence instead of more.
What are the main reasons for judicial politicization?3 answersJudicial politicization occurs due to several factors. One reason is the ideological positioning of judges and lawyers, with higher courts tending to be more conservative and polarized compared to the broader population of attorneys. Another factor is the selection mechanism for judges, with systems relying on gubernatorial or legislative appointments being more politicized. Additionally, the level of politicization in a judiciary is influenced by informal norms regarding judicial appointment by the executive, rather than the formal selection mechanism. The fear of negative implications of judicial choices also leads political actors to alter their policies in advance, further contributing to judicial politicization. These findings highlight how political actors strategically prioritize higher courts and use ideology in the selection of judges, leading to the politicization of American courts.