The Influence of Judicial Ideology on the Use of Precedent

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Niblett ◽  
Albert Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Ideology

Judicial Ideology and Business Dynamics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Canayaz ◽  
Matthew Gustafson
Keyword(s):  
Business Dynamics ◽  
Judicial Ideology

Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Statistical Approach ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Forthcoming Book ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Judicial Ideology

For a variety of reasons political science in Britain has made no serious attempt to study courts and judges as political institutions and actors. Or at least this was true until recently. Several works in the last few years, especially Griffith's, Stevens's and a forthcoming book on the law lords by Alan Paterson, have pointed to a much needed change in this attitude. However, none of them have been works of political science, even though they have considered politics. By this I mean two things: they have not principally considered the judges' thoughts as political ideology; and they have not used the techniques and assumptions of rigorous, analytic political science. Indeed one of the few slightly earlier studies of the political role of the courts in Britain, by Morrison, specifically denies that such approaches, especially the statistical approach of jurimetrics, is possible in Britain. This article is an attempt to do the impossible, not so much because the author believes that Morrison's point is necessarily wrong, but because it is never sound methodology to abandon techniques that have been useful elsewhere without trying to make them work on different data sets. But first we must attempt to characterize the judicial role, before we try any study of the politics that may be attendant on judicial ideology.

scholarly journals Authoritarian Dimension of Judicial Ideology of the Slovenian Constitutional Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-760
Author(s):  
Jernej Letnar Černič
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Judicial Ideology ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Independent Functioning

After the democratization and independence of Slovenia, the Constitutional Court has generated the paradigm reform in the Slovenian constitutional system by protecting individual rights against the heritage of the former system. The constitutional judges are not blank slates, but individuals embedded in their private and professional environments. In the past three decades, the Court has delivered several seminal decisions concerning the protection of the rule of law, human rights, and constitutional democracy. What motivates constitutional judges to protect individual rights in some cases and show preference for the preservation of authority and stability of the existing legal system in others? The article is based on the empirical research measuring the presence of judicial ideology at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia in three mandates (1993–1997, 2002–2006, 2011–2016). The methodological and theoretical model aims to measure economic, social, and authoritarian dimensions of judicial ideology (three-fold judicial ideology model). The research group has analysed the decisions and separate opinions of the Constitutional Court from selected periods based on hypotheses provided by the model. This article intends to present and analyse the research results concerning the authoritarian dimension of judicial ideology. More specifically, it examines the level of authoritarianism of the Slovenian Constitutional Court in its judicial decision-making during the three mentioned mandates. Through the obtained empirical results, the paper seeks to strengthen fair, impartial, and independent functioning of the Slovenian Constitutional Court and its respective judges.

Judicial Ideology in the Absence of Rights: Evidence from Australia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Robinson ◽  
Patrick Leslie ◽  
Jill Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Ideology

Judicial Ideology in the Absence of Rights: Evidence from Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Robinson ◽  
Patrick Leslie ◽  
Jill Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Ideology

scholarly journals Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-159
Author(s):  
Matej Avbelj ◽  
Janez Šušteršič
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
European Countries ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Ideological Differences ◽  
Judicial Ideology ◽  
Empirical Methodology

Abstract The article presents a conceptual framework and empirical methodology of an on-going research on the role of ideology in the decisions of the Slovenian Constitution Court. The literature review demonstrates that research on judicial ideology in the courts of European countries and international courts is still rare. This can be explained by conceptual, methodological and empirical challenges posed by this type of research. The article hence advances a conceptual framework which is, contra to the mainstream theoretical approach in the field, based on a multidimensional conception of ideology that is empirically operationalised along the economic, social and authoritarian dimensions with five possible ideological positions on each dimension. By applying the newly developed methodology to a sample of Court’s decisions, it is demonstrated that this methodological approach is able to account for ideological differences between judges. This confirms that (judges’) ideology is a complex multidimensional set of values and convictions that cannot be reduced to simply equating ideology with (possible) political affiliations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document