Efektywność kontroli sądowoadministracyjnej rozstrzygnięć wydawanych w procedurach administracyjnych trzeciej generacji. Rozważania na tle wybranych rozwiązań normatywnych w prawie polskim

The study is devoted to analysing the relationships between the effectiveness of judicial control exercised by administrative courts and the specific character of administrative procedures of third generation. The considerations lead to the conclusion that the special features and the normative solutions of the positive law entail limitations on the intensity of the judicial review of legality of the contested administrative acts or actions. In such a situation, the judicial control may be confined to the formal sphere of legality. Consequently, the degree of effectiveness of the judicial impact on the administrative activity of prospective character may be substantially reduced.

Judging the Troops: Exceptional Security Measures and Judicial Impact in India

This Article examines a controversial national security measure: the use of the armed forces within domestic borders. Military policing blurs the boundaries between crime and war, and tends to entail greater use of force against individuals. It has received relatively little academic attention but deserves to be better understood. No democratic state has relied on military policing for longer than India. And within India, no region has been subject to military policing for as long as the northeastern state of Manipur. I analyze how military policing in Manipur has fostered abuse by the armed forces, which in turn has prompted litigation and judicial innovation. Based on my analysis, I critique dominant theories about the state’s exceptional security powers. I advance two main claims. First, exceptional powers rarely remain exceptional; they eventually become the norm. Once deployed, these powers persist, and the license they provide seeps into broader habits of governance. Second, once normalized, exceptional powers become more vulnerable to judicial intervention. Judges become unwilling to accept the government’s argument that these powers are always and only used to fight pressing threats. These powers eventually become a routine subject of judicial review. Even once judicial review becomes routine, however, judges tend to be more willing to help victims of abuse than to punish abusers.

Judicial Impact

For decades, research on judicial impact has supported two seemingly contradictory propositions. Courts are persistently viewed as weak institutions that lack implementation tools and powerful political actors that influence numerous social outcomes. This schizophrenic state of the literature is propelled by ambiguity over the meaning of judicial impact. A narrow conceptualization of judicial impact as the causal effect of judicial rulings on others’ behavior offers conceptual clarity and analytical rigor. Studies in this vein often disagree about whose behavior to examine (judges, bureaucrats, or private actors), but there is considerable agreement regarding the factors that shape impact: opinion clarity, agency preferences, institutional context, and external pressure. Impact researchers should heed the admonishments of earlier scholars and strive to resolve the conceptual ambiguities that pervade the field.

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior

The chapters in this handbook reflect on aspects of judicial decision-making in U.S. courts, with a focus on the factors and institutional dynamics that shape the choices judges make. The authors have provided chapters that describe existing research on multiple aspects of the decision-making process and environment, including chapters on judicial appointments and elections, court personnel (law clerks), trial and appellate processes, precedent and case selection, lawyers, litigants and interest groups, intergovernmental dynamics and the separation of powers, judicial attitudes and background characteristics, public opinion, and judicial impact and the implementation of court decrees. These chapters offer a comprehensive evaluation of the existing literature both for students who are new to these areas of behavioral research, as well as for scholars interested in identifying avenues for future research.

Judicial Impact

Scholars have long been interested in judicial impact—the ability of courts to meaningfully alter policy or politics—because judicial decisions shape law, have the potential to affect many people, and may even implicate democracy in a fundamental sense. Classic studies in this tradition concern the degree to which actors outside the court comply with judicial decrees, such as whether or not (or to what extent) schools desegregated in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. However, scholars working in a variety of other traditions have likewise examined the impact of judicial decisions, though they have not always used those terms. For example, advocates of interbranch analysis have situated courts within broader ongoing policy processes, and in so doing have documented repeated instances in which policy outcomes were altered by the actions of lawyers and judges. Likewise, students of legal mobilization have documented the sometimes constitutive effects of legal ideas on a wide range of political identities, attitudes, and behaviors. In short, the concept of impact includes a variety of ways in which courts influence politics, and the field of judicial impact studies will continue to benefit from a vital diversity of methods of inquiry, subjects of analysis, and conceptions of law.