From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of Australia's Family Relationship Centres

As a centrepiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms, the community‐based Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) represented a major development in the Government's commitment to incorporate family relationship services into its family law system. This paper sees FRCs as a logical development of the original conceptualising the Family Court of Australia as a “helping court”. The paper suggests that the aspiration to create a helping court was partially achieved in 1976 via the creation of an in‐house family court counselling service, which was primarily focused not on law and legal principles, but on supporting the ways in which family members were managing the task of redefining relationships. While generally valued by judges and others, this service nonetheless found itself in tension with the Family Court's continued primary commitment to legally informed and adversarially driven negotiation and decision‐making processes. Since 2006, the creation of FRCs has spearheaded a family law system that provides relationship‐focused interventions away from the courts as the default option for most parenting disputes. Consistent with this aim, there is evidence of a diminished percentage of cases now requiring judicial intervention. The 2006 legislation also provides for courts to conduct “less adversarial trials.” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours. The legal challenge in dealing with these cases is for courts to provide child focused, fair and non‐destructive internal processes. In addition, however, it is increasingly clear that to support and help facilitate their decisions, courts also need good working relationships with FRCs and other community based services. FRCs and the 2006 reforms offer the possibility of moving beyond the ideal of a “helping court” to the broader concept of helping family law system.     

Judicial Reform and Rationalization: The Diffusion of Court Reform Policies Among the American States

Explaining the diffusion of judicial reform policies among the American states is an elusive task. Are such policies simply part of the larger policy process revealed in the comparative state policy literature? Or b court reform a policy arena unto itself, responding to factors uniquely legal or professional in nature? Our inquiry begins with Max Weber's sociology of law from which we adopt his concept of rationalization as a schema of policy development. According to Weber, the “rationalization” of legal institutions would accompany the advancement of capitalism in modernizing nations. Thus, we might expect specific judicial reform policies expressly aimed at rationalizing the structure and process of state court systems to be closely associated with each other and with commonly accepted indicators of economic development among the states. As part of our investigation, we relate court reforms to broader policy innovations among the states, drawing on earlier “diffusion of innovations” research. Our data indicate a strong connection between judicial reform and more general patterns of innovation diffusion among the states, but provide only modest support for Weber's assertions about the rationalization of legal systems under advancing capitalism. Three of the selected reforms cluster together and are largely explainable by indicators of economic development. Two other reforms do not fit this pattern, and their “behavior” requires additional discussion and research. Thus, the diffusion of judicial reform policy is partly accounted for by factors found in explanations of general policy innovations across states, but other, as yet unidentified, factors apparently influence certain aspects of judicial reform. The connection between Max Weber's legal sociology and policy development among the American states might at first blush seem remote or tenuous. However, this article attempts to use Weber's insights into modern legal systems to (1) examine a specific area of state policy making–judicial reform–and (2) establish a connection between policy development in the court reform area and the larger literature on general policy innovation in the American states. This inquiry is inspired by the lack of theoretical integration apparent in the literature on court reform, on the one hand, and the absence of empirical analyses connecting court reform data with “diffusion of innovation” policy studies, on the other.     

"Constrained" Constitutional Courts as Conduits for Democratic Consolidation

Many constitutional courts, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, have more power than the "constrained court" model of judicial decisionmaking suggests because they operate in an increasingly international environment. By analyzing the Estonian Supreme Court's adjudication of minority linguistic rights, we show how even a new court can act as a "conduit" for democratic reform by identifying for legislators national constitutional paths along which domestically disliked but internationally defined democratic reforms can be pursued, preserving national integrity while acknowledging international reality. International pressures, while constraining courts, thus can free them from national constraints while allowing them to imprint their own vision.     

The Achievements and Prospects of Court Reforms in China

Judicial reform has become an important issue of Chinese people. At the end of 2004, “The Preliminary Comment on the Judicial System and Working Mechanism form the Central Leading ‘Group of Judicial System Reform’” is conferred by the central group of judicial reform. This paper analyses the achievements China has made in the last five years, especially in the area of court reform, judge reform, evidence reform, judge reform. Beyond this, this paper also expounds the prospect of China’s judicial reform in improving the judicial independence, the judge quality, the court organization reforms and the reforms in evidence system. This paper is based on Wang Liming, “Some suggestions to the judicial reform”, Juris Review (Vol. 4, 2005) (in chinese)     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

深化改革背景下对司法行政化的遏制

司法行政化,即以行政的目的、构造、方法、机理及效果取代司法自身的内容,形成以行政方式操作的司法。法院司法运作的全过程均带有行政化色彩,表现为司法目的和价值的行政化、案件审判活动的行政化、上下级法院关系的行政化、司法人事制度和法院结构的行政化以及审判管理的行政化等。在给定的约束条件下,司法行政化可以弥补一线司法能力之不足,可以抗制外部干预。但其过度发展会妨碍依法治国,损害办案质量与效率,危及司法权威和公信力,阻碍法院工作的可持续发展。司法行政化的根源在于基本权力结构及其运行机制;司法功能设定的非司法化和资源配置的有限性,统一的人事管理制度和财政供应制度以及国家机能分化不足,亦为重要原因。遏制司法行政化需强化法院的司法审查功能、审判功能以及终局性纠纷解决功能;需阻隔行政性要素介入审判,建立审判独立的"二元模式";需在法院审判管理、司法行政管理、上下级法院业务管理上"去行政化"。     

四级两审制的发生和演化

司法体制改革的一个重要举措是设立最高人民法院巡回法庭,这一改革举措可能意味着我国法院层级或审级变化的新动向.从建国以来的历史经验看,法院层级和审级变化并非彼此孤立,且都从属于国家政治形态设计.1954年中共中央取消大区分院,促动了法院审级由三审制改为两审制.两审制带来的法院功能和案负变化,导致中级人民法院层级的设立.为了保障四级两审制平滑运作,民事调解制度扩大,基层法院派出法庭普遍设立.这一法院层级和审级制度的设立,契合了扩大省级地方权力的政治目标.1983年以来“地改市”运动、民事调解制度的萎缩以及撤销部分派出法庭,使得四级两审制的基础发生松动,法院层级和审级方面的新变化由此产生.     

Falling into Line? The Hostile Environment and the Legend of the ‘Judges’ Revolt’

In 2012 the Government made a number of controversial changes to the Immigration Rules, which it claimed would ‘comprehensively reform the approach taken towards ECHR Article 8 in immigration cases’. This paper examines the judicial response, arguing that the courts ‘fell into line’, adapting human rights law to the government's aims through unprincipled and opportunistic techniques, whilst inflicting hardship and injustice on working-class British citizens in particular. Four key moves are identified. First, the courts created an ‘incapable’ test which immunised the rules from in principle challenges. Second, Lord Bingham's Article 8 test, in which the reasonableness of any family member relocation was a central consideration, was replaced with a far less family-friendly test. Third, the courts adopted an ultra-lax rationality test at common law, even when the ‘fundamental rights’ of British citizens were engaged. Finally, the courts identified immigration policy as the ‘constitutional responsibility’ of the executive.     

Can a leopard change its spots? Strategic behavior versus professional role conception during Ukraine's 2014 court chair elections

Do judges respond to institutional and strategic incentives or do they strictly follow dominant professional role conceptions? This article weighs in by exploring whether an ideational shift toward judicial empowerment and independence can germinate from institutional reforms. Ukraine's 2014 Euromaidan revolution and the comprehensive judicial reform adopted in its wake provide a test of the competing theoretical accounts. A judicial lustration law sacked all incumbent court chairs, who had been appointed by the executive, and gave Ukrainian judges the right to elect new chairs via secret ballot. I analyze this radical step toward judicial self-government using an original data set with individual- and court-level data. The key finding is that less than a fifth of Ukrainian judges embraced their newly granted agency and elected a new chair for their court, whereas the overwhelming majority followed dominant professional norms of deference and reelected the sacked court chairs. This finding holds for all rungs of the judicial hierarchy and for all regions of Ukraine. Even protégés of ousted president Yanukovych won the secret ballot vote by their peers more often than they lost it. Beyond Ukraine, these results suggest that empowering individual judges in the highly hierarchical structure of a civil law judiciary is unlikely to lead to a judicial behavior shift, at least in the short run.     

UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION TRIAL COURT JUDGES

An examination is made of the extent to which limited jurisdiction trial court judges make unique contributions to court policies. The methodology and political implications of minor court research differs from those in higher courts. Analysis of variance found that minor court judges in multiple-judge courts differed in the level and uniformity of fines and costs assessed in misdemeanor cases. Binary tests for regression discontinuity found that judges in single-judge courts initiated policy changes upon entering office. Such knowledge of unique judicial contributions would enable citizens and court officials to make informed decisions in judge selections and court reforms.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

司法解释权:理论逻辑与制度建构

法官在司法过程中,应当按照一定的原则创造性地解释和适用法律,这是现代法学理论在法律解释问题上的主导观念。目前,越来越多的国家在立法上赋予法院或法官解释法律的权力。司法解释构成了司法过程中的一项基本作业。作为特定制度结构下的集体智慧化的产物,司法解释权由最高司法机关统一行使具有正当性和现实合理性。建国后沿袭下来的我国司法解释权制度存在着一系列明显的缺憾。处于传统向现代转型的当代中国,正日益面临着发展和创新司法解释权制度的历史重任。重构我国司法解释权制度的总体思路是:在正确界定不同审级法院职能分工的基础上,促进最高人民法院功能由司法审判向法律统一适用转变;按照法治社会的基本要求,树立司法解释在法律适用上的应有权威;从法律解释的内在规律出发,建立科学合理的司法解释规则体系。     

建立我国民事诉讼审前准备程序的必要与建议

民事诉讼中的审前程序是开庭审理前的一个重要诉讼阶段,我国《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(下称《民诉法》)及最高法院的相关司法解释都对审前程序的相关制度做了规定。但这些规定较零散,不成体系,相互之间缺乏协调,甚至相互矛盾;又由于在司法实践中,各地法院情况不一,法官的理解、认知能力不一,导致在实践中操作也不一致。现在各地法院摸索创新出的许多民事审前程序规则实际上带有程序规则与实体规则存在的双重困惑:既不能保持已有的审前程序的正当性与效率性,又难以体现我国现有审判方式改革后所要求达到的公正与效率的目标。规范、统一审前准备程序,改变诉讼拖延和民事诉讼程序过程中规定散乱、执行标准不一的状况,是民事诉讼制度从改革走向完善,从宏观到微观的必然。     

论法院处理环境纠纷案件中的司法能动

司法能动是法院在案件审理中,不因循先例和遵从成文法的字面含义进行司法解释的一种司法理念以及基于此理念的行动。我国法院在发挥司法能动性,处理环境纠纷案件方面作出了大量努力,为经济社会发展提供了司法保障。但法院在发挥司法能动性处理环境纠纷案件中仍然存在较大的问题。解决这些问题,必须把握法院在环境纠纷案件处理中司法能动的向度,落实司法独立,引导法官正确行使自由裁量权,努力培养环境司法专业人才,发挥法官适用法律的能动性。     

Court Finance and Court Responses to Judicial Reforms: A Tale of Two Chinese Courts

This research studies the responses of two lower-level courts, one in rural and the other in urban China, to recent judicial reforms focusing on strengthening institutional building and professionalism. It finds that the court-funding structure under which the courts heavily rely on the local government for expenses, together with the unbalanced development of local economy, remarkably affects the two courts' behavioral pattern in different ways. The rural court, for the sake of litigation fees, tries to attract potential litigants to file certain lawsuits, even though it cannot effectively handle them. The efforts toward institutional building and professionalism only aggravate the already difficult situation. The urban court's institutional quality seems to have increased in the reform process, thanks to sufficient resources from the developed and diversified local economy. But it has also become more formalized and bureaucratic, as it tries to exclude difficult and problematic disputes from getting into the court. In illustrating the complexity of transitional China's judicial reform process generated by both the unbalanced economic development and the bureaucratization of the judiciary, this article suggests that the enhancement of institutional quality, which many argue is key to economic development, may itself be contingent upon the success of economic development.     

A Court Quietly Rewrote the Federal Pesticide Statute: How Prevalent is Judicial Statutory Revision?

Author's Note: My thanks to Lloyd Musolf, Paul Sabatier, Martin Shapiro, John M. Thomas and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I also acknowledge the generous support of the Energy and Environmental Policy Research Program at the Institute of Ecology, University of California at Davis.
The resurgence in policymaking by American courts has revitalized the longstanding debate over judicial activism. Yet much of that debate addresses judicial interpretations of the Constitution, as distinct from statutory law. When interpreting vague statutes, judges can make inconspicuous but fundamental policy reforms. This paper discusses the political circumstances encouraging this form of judicial intervention. The enormous subtlety in judicial capabilities is illustrated. The paper concludes that by focusing primarily on obvious features of court activism, the contemporary debate may be seriously under representing the extent of judicial contributions to our fragmented form of governance.     

我国行政诉讼全面审查制度再思考——法院对行政机关认定事实的态度分析

我国人民法院对行政机关认定事实采取怀疑或否定态度,对行政机关认定事实实行全面审查。英美法系国家法院对行政机关的事实认定采取尊重态度,对事实问题采用宽松的审查标准。大陆法系国家行政诉讼一般不区分事实问题和法律问题,都进行全面审查。我国应当重新思考人民法院的全面审查制度,对专业性和技术性强的行政案件,以及行政机关适用简易程序当场作出决定的案件,人民法院应当尊重行政机关对事实的认定。对一般案件事实,如果法律规定以具备某种性质为要件时,审查行政机关对事实性质的判断是否符合法律的规定。对于重大的或对当事人利益有重大影响的行政案件,进行全面审查。     

High‐End Demand: The Legal Profession as a Source of Judicial Selection Reform in Urban China

Most studies of comparative judicial politics suggest that judicial autonomy emerges from democratic competition, but despite its authoritarian political system, China has introduced reforms that increase merit‐based competition, transparency, and modest professional autonomy in local courts. Variations in judicial selection procedures across urban China reflect differences in local markets for professional legal services: when mid‐ranking judges can easily find lucrative local employment as lawyers, court leaders strategically reform appointment and promotion mechanisms to retain these young, but experienced, judges. These findings are based on nearly fifteen months of in‐country fieldwork, conducted between 2012 and 2014, including forty‐nine interviews with judges across three different cities: Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chengdu. Employing the subnational comparative method, this article not only builds theory regarding the legal profession's role in authoritarian states, but also offers new empirical detail regarding the selection, performance evaluation, and behavior of judges in urban China.     

What makes an international institution work for labor activists? Shaping international law through strategic litigation

Studies on international legal mobilization often analyze the mobilization efforts of activists at a single international court. Yet we know little about how activists choose among multiple international institutions to advance social justice claims. Drawing on comparative case studies of Turkish and British trade union activists' legal mobilization efforts and case law analysis, I show that activists, guided by their lawyers, probe multiple avenues to identify the legal institution with the highest judicial authority and is most responsive to activists' claims. Once they identify their target institution, the iterative process between a responsive court and activists' strategic litigation can build a court's jurisprudence in a new issue area, even if the court provides limited de jure rights protections. Activists primarily use international litigation strategy to leverage structural reforms at the domestic level and to set new international norms through precedents.     

Enhancing Rescue in Chapter 11: Lessons from Reform Efforts in the United Kingdom

This is a dynamic time for insolvency law. Many jurisdictions have made or are considering reforms to their insolvency regimes. The United Kingdom has proposed a new standalone restructuring mechanism that incorporates many attributes of Chapter 11, including a cross-class cram down and the absolute priority rule. A distinctive feature of the UK proposal is the infusion of judicial discretion permitting courts to deviate from the absolute priority rule. This discretion is not permitted in the United States. This judicial discretion addresses a key problem with the application of the absolute priority rule in the United States—it may serve as an impediment to reorganization. This impediment is exacerbated by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., which impacts the effective use of Chapter 11 rescue tools. This article explores the absolute priority rule, the problems associated with it, and the effect of Jevic in the United States. Drawing on the UK reform proposal, I argue that the United States should implement reforms that infuse judicial discretion into the application of the absolute priority rule. Doing so will facilitate the underlying policy goal of rescuing the company in Chapter 11 and also promote a broader policy goal of rescuing the business.