Banking Union's accountability system in practice: A health check-up to Europe's financial heart

The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) form the Banking Union, which comprises EU authorities (ECB and SRB) and national authorities (NCAs and NRAs) with vast powers. Although crucial for its legitimacy, the Banking Union’s accountability is flawed, and not for the (stereo)typical reasons: accountability is a visible concept in SSM and SRM regulations, and political, administrative and judicial bodies are knowledgeable, engaged and thorough. Rather, this article posits that the SSM and SRM work very well because the legislature focused on practical details such as information flows, planning and continuity and coordination, while there has been no comparable effort to ensure the functioning of accountability tools. The result is a “system” characterised by limited access to crucial information, lack of continuity, and uncoordinated functioning. Changing this should not be hard but requires replacing blanket criticism and stereotypical views with greater attention to detail.     

Accountability in Governance: The Challenge of Implementing the Aarhus Convention in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

The signing of the 1998 UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) radically extended international law on transparency and accountability in environmental governance. For the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) that have now ratified, the Convention could prompt profound democratic changes. This article, based on the authors' experiences, analyses changing cultures of governance in EECCA countries. The first so-called pillar of access to information sets in place rights that directly contradict the fundamental secrecy of the former Soviet Union countries. Some officials' reluctance to share environmental information may also be linked to the economic duress of the current transition period, where information may be an official's only asset. The second pillar of public participation also poses difficulties for officials for whom the highest praise is to be considered a professional. In their belief that no one knows better than they do, they are reluctant to spend time and resources to make decision-making transparent and to involve the public. The third pillar of access to justice breaks new ground for post-socialist countries still developing their judicial systems. Though several highly sophisticated NGOs have been successful in using courts, it remains difficult for an ordinary EECCA citizen to bring an environment-related legal action. Changing these attitudes and practices will be a long and troublesome process. The Aarhus Convention will not be truly implemented until openness, transparency and accountability in environmental decision-making become everyday habits.     

“It’s the politics, stupid!”. The politicization of anti-corruption in Italy

This article aims to analyze the relationship between judicial activism against political corruption and electoral accountability. The judiciary plays a pivotal role in enforcing anti-corruption legislation, and, in many countries, courts have moved closer and closer towards that kind of working. In the article, we analyze the conditions under which a judicial prosecution of corrupt practices can also lead to electoral punishment of political misconducts by voters, or to a failure of accountability mechanisms. The latter outcome is more likely to occur if judicial activism is politicized. The ‘politicization’ of anti-corruption initiatives is here defined as an increase in the polarization of opinions, interests, or values about judicial investigations and the extent to which this polarization is strategically advanced towards the political debate by parties, political leaders, and media. By crystallizing a new dimension of political conflict, political actors can negatively affect electoral accountability, diminishing the risk of electoral punishment. We study this phenomenon by analyzing the case of Italy, a country which has experienced high levels of politicization of anti-corruption. However, whether and to what extent anti-corruption policies can be politicized is a question open for many other countries that can take a similar path.     

An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System

Judicial scholars have often speculated about the impact of elections on the administration of justice in the state courts. Yet relatively little research has concerned itself with public perceptions of state court selection methods. Of particular interest is the concept of legitimacy. Do elections negatively affect public perceptions of judicial legitimacy? Bonneau and Hall (2009) and Gibson (2012) answer this question with an emphatic “No.” Judicial elections, these studies show, are not uniquely troublesome for perceptions of institutional legitimacy. This article aims to extend the findings of Bonneau and Hall and Gibson via a laboratory experiment on the effects of elections on public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. In the end, we find that because elections preempt the use of the other main selection method—appointment—they actually enhance perceptions of judicial legitimacy rather than diminish them.     

Reviewable Automated Decision-Making

In this paper we introduce the concept of ‘reviewability' as an alternative approach to improving the accountability of automated decision-making that involves machine learning systems. In doing so, we draw on an understanding of automated decision-making as a socio-technical process, involving both human (organisational) and technical components, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. Although explanations for automated decisions may be useful in some contexts, they focus more narrowly on the model and therefore do not provide the information about that process as a whole that is necessary for many aspects of accountability, regulatory oversight, and assessments for legal compliance. Drawing on previous work on the application of administrative law and judicial review mechanisms to automated decision-making in the public sector, we argue that breaking down the automated decision-making process into its technical and organisational components allows us to consider how appropriate record-keeping and logging mechanisms implemented at each stage of that process would allow for the process as a whole to be reviewed. Although significant research is needed to explore how it can be implemented, we argue that a reviewability framework potentially offers for a more useful and more holistic form of accountability for automated decision-making than approaches focused more narrowly on explanations.     

Reconciling Independence and accountability at the European Central Bank: The false promise of Proceduralism

This article revisits the balancing act between independence and accountability at the European Central Bank (ECB). It contrasts procedural and substantive concepts of accountability, and challenges the mainstream idea that independence and accountability can be reconciled through narrow mandates, the indiscriminate increase of transparency, the creation of multiple channels of accountability, and the active use of judicial review. These assumptions form the pillars of a procedural type of accountability that promises to resolve the independence/accountability dilemma but fails to do so in practice. The article brings evidence to show how ECB accountability has become a complex administrative exercise that focuses on the procedural steps leading up to monetary and supervisory decisions while simultaneously limiting substantive accountability. The failure to acknowledge the trade‐off between independence and accountability (said to be ‘two sides of the same coin’) has resulted in a tendency to privilege the former over the latter.     

Campaigning for the Bench: The Corrosive Effects of Campaign Speech?

A new era has emerged in the ways in which candidates for state judicial office campaign. In the past, judicial elections were largely devoid of policy content, with candidates typically touting their judicial experience and other preparation for serving as a judge. Today, in many if not most states, such campaigns are relics of the past. Modern judicial campaigns have adopted many of the practices of candidates for other types of political office, including soliciting campaign contributions, using attack ads, and even making promises about how they will decide issues if elected to the bench. Not surprisingly, this new style of judicial campaigning has caused considerable consternation among observers of the courts, with many fearing that such activity will undermine the very legitimacy of legal institutions. Such fears, however, are grounded in practically no rigorous empirical evidence on the effects of campaign activity on public evaluations of judicial institutions. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effects of campaign activity on the perceived legitimacy of courts. Using survey data drawn from Kentucky, I use both post hoc and experimental methods to assess whether public perceptions of courts are influenced by various sorts of campaign activity. In general, my findings are that different types of campaign activity have quite different consequences. For instance, policy pronouncements by candidates do not undermine judicial legitimacy, whereas policy promises do. Throughout the analysis, I compare perceptions of courts and legislatures, and often find that courts are far less unique than many ordinarily assume. I conclude this article with a discussion of the implications of the findings for the contemporary debate over the use of elections to select judges to the high courts of many of the American states.     

Judicial Review Without Rights: Some Problems for the Democratic Legitimacy of Structural Judicial Review

This article addresses an issue overlooked in most of the literatureon judicial review: the legitimacy of judicial review of a constitution'sfederal and structural provisions. Debates about the legitimacyof judicial review—at least as conducted throughout theCommonwealth—are usually focussed on rights. These debatesappear to assume that the power of courts like the AustralianHigh Court and the Canadian Supreme Court to interpret and enforcefederal and structural provisions is unproblematic. This articletests that assumption and concludes that those who hold democracy-basedobjections to constitutional rights should seriously reconsider,and perhaps oppose, federal and structural judicial review aswell.     

疑难案件、司法判决与实质权衡

在疑难案件的审理中,经常可以发现,一些法律规则之外的因素影响了司法判决的做出。如何认识与评价这一现象？这些因素是否不可避免？如果是,这是否就意味着司法判决失去了客观性、确定性与合法性？文章通过考察几个中国司法实践中所出现的疑难案件,以及一些理论上的探讨,回答了上述问题,并得出结论：在疑难案件中,一个完整的法律论证必然要将某些法律之外的因素涵括进来;或者说,一个包含了法外因素的论证将更为真实、更为完整,从而也是更值得被接受的。     

公民的司法参与权研究

公民享有司法参与权是人民主权的有力体现,也是公民实现政治参与的重要途径。宪法和相关法律为公民的司法参与权提供法律依据,正当程序和司法民主理念则是公民司法参与权的法理基础。我国公民司法参与权的表现形式多种多样且范围十分广泛,但我们仍需要通过增加诉权的宪法保障、规范细化陪审制度和人民监督员制度等途径予以完善,以保障公民司法参与权的实现。     

司法公正要素分析

司法公正是法的公平与正义的一般概念在司法活动中的体现 ,表现为一整套被社会伦理所普遍认同的司法制度和被司法活动参与者个别认同的司法程序。它所体现的交往合理性的制度构架和程序安排使司法活动过程和司法活动结果获得正当性和权威性 ,并因此发挥社会纠纷解决机制的功能。因此 ,司法公正是权威、伦理、制度和程序诸要素综合作用的结果 ,其实现需要在伦理认同的基础上构建制度和程序 ,并使司法获得其权威性。     

Sentencing Transparency in the Information Age

How unrestricted or restricted should judges be when deciding a sentence? To what extent should sentences be predetermined, or to what extent should judges be left with the right to decide a sentence in each individual case? Some legal systems, most notably in the United States, have chosen sentencing guidelines to control judicial discretion. However, another approach has been to use computer technology in the form of so‐called sentencing information systems (SIS). This article examines these developments and what possible influence they have had and could have in the Scandinavian, particularly in the Norwegian, context. Penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Does and could the fact that we are living in an increasingly technologically mediated world influence judicial decision‐making? The article argues that the use of technology is not simply a question of technological change, but is first and foremost a social and political phenomenon, related to the relations of trust in a society.     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.     

Protecting parliamentary democracy in “plague” times: Accountability and democratic institutions during the pandemic

The spread of COVID-19 has not only placed strains on public health and the economy. It has presented challenges to the constitutional structure and the continuing requirement that parliaments within the Westminister system of government be able to operate. In such systems, the continued legitimacy of government action and accountability for those actions rests and must remain with the elected chamber of Parliament. At the same time, COVID-19 precludes normal gatherings of parliamentarians for proceedings. This article briefly explores the constitutional necessity for continued parliamentary scrutiny, the various forms such proceedings have taken to date and the application of parliamentary privilege to such proceedings.     

少年司法改革制度中的检察帮教责任机制探析

少年司法改革制度中检察帮教责任机制是一个重要的程序和制度。这一制度有别于公安机关和审判机关的帮教责任机制。少年司法改革制度的司法机关帮教责任实践同时表明,在对现有少年司法帮教制度中相关人民检察院在少年司法改革制度中的帮教责任依然存在模糊和漏洞,需要分析检察机关在少年司法中的帮教责任机制特点,提出相应的改进建议及启用策略,完善检察帮教责任机制。     

Considering the consequences of increased reliance on judicial assistants: a study on Dutch courts

Virtually all judicial systems employ judicial staff members to assist judges in their work. However, except for US Supreme Court law clerks the role of these judicial assistants in judicial decision-making is minimally understood. This observation also holds true for the Netherlands, where an increased focus on managerial issues, such as efficiency and effectiveness, seems to have resulted in a growing number of judicial duties being assigned to judicial assistants. This article provides an initial reflection on such reliance on assistants. The context in which this development occurred is clarified, and the manifestation of the role of judicial assistants within the judicial process is described. This article also discusses two factors that require consideration when reliance on assistants increases: (1) the mechanisms for safeguarding the profession of the judge and the judicial assistant; and (2) the position of the judicial assistant in the judicial decision-making process. The consideration demonstrates the advantages of employing judicial assistants and also sheds light on serious risks relating to an increased role of judicial assistants in judicial decision-making.     

论董事问责的诚信路径

董事经营决策的尊重审查模式契合了适应性效率的要求,有利于鼓励董事进行尝试性试验。但是,在商事判断规则作用下,董事问责需原告负担严苛的举证责任,董事决策审查形式化以及注意标准的不确定性,使得注意义务几乎被掏空,介于重大过失与恶意之间的董事失信情形往往逃脱法律责任。诚信路径不仅是问责空隙的填补机制,也是克服股东与董事之间信息不对称问题的重要机制。20世纪90年代以来董事问责的司法实践催生了诚信路径,诚信概念亦因创造性转化而获得新生,其行为标准日益明晰,司法审查可操作性增强。我国可通过《公司法》的司法解释界定诚信的行为标准,将故意让公司违法、不坦诚告知、滥用职权和严重失职纳入其涵摄范围,从而引入诚信问责路径。     

Access, accountability and authority: Corruption and the democratic process

Democratic systems face the challenge of sustainingtheir political authority while simultaneouslyproviding access to the political system for theircitizens, and ensuring existence of mechanisms for theformal and political accountability of those inoffice. The connections between these threecomponents, and between them and corruption, arecomplex. The paper suggests ways in whichaccountability may undermine authority through theblurring of distinctions between formal and politicalaccountability, by ham-stringing politicalinstitutions, by creating incentives for corruptpractices, and by politicising accusations ofcorruption. Access can be similarly destabilising andcorrupting, where trust is low and compliance withrules weak; and a basic problem with securing highlevels of trust is that the materials from which suchtrust is manufactured are often the very things whichaccountability mechanisms regard as corrupt – localnetworks, clientelism, and personal loyalties andfriendships. In democratising states, attackingthese elements can eradicate rather than enhance thebasis for well-regulated access.Different democratic systems have evolved differentways of balancing these three components. Theparticular institutional form the balance takes willhave a major impact on the types of corruption thesystem will face, and on the solutions which areappropriate. However, the tendency in internationalcircles is for one highly idiosyncratic understandingof this balance to hold sway, with potentiallydestabilising consequences when applied to theanalysis of corruption, especially in democratisingstates. The paper concludes that attempts to reduce corruptionand increase accountability by increasingparticipation and access are flawed. Access mayincrease the risk of corruption, while accountabilityremains a classic public good on which free-ridingwill be widespread. Corruption control in democracieswill not be solved by more democracy – indeed, itmight need less.     

Globalisation of the judicial education discourse

This paper focuses on the globalisation phenomenon and how it changed the judicial profession throughout the world. It illustrates how the supra-national judicial system came into being, how access to supra-national judicial authorities started undermining the relevance of domestic judicial systems, why such access is becoming more common and why citizens are increasingly approaching these authorities. The paper explores how an increasingly globalised world is making jurisdiction an irrelevant issue for entertaining claims/conflicts from around the world, what the future holds for national judicial systems in an era of superiority of supra-national judicial institutions, and how to develop judicial education further so as to help national judiciaries sustain faith in them. The utility of global alliances and partnerships in the development of judicial education and how they may strengthen the national judicial systems are also discussed.