Courts Voluntary Networks

Abstract

Although the legal framework for their establishment and operation is identical, courts are marked by diversity. And it is not just about the differences arising from the court’s place in the hierarchy. Courts not only differ in the tangible resources (depending on size) and intangible resources (the knowledge and skills of employees) they possess but also in the organizational culture and the ability to learn (Banasik and Brdulak 2015) and the reputation they have, as well as in the network of contacts (Banasik and Morawska 2016). Courts are embedded in the dense structure of relations with the environment (Czakon 2007), including with other courts. The interorganizational cooperation between courts takes place not only within hierarchical, i.e., regulatory, networks (regulated courts networks) with regard to the tasks imposed by the legislature but also within heterarchical, i.e., voluntary, networks (voluntary courts networks). Courts should strive to harmonize the services they offer, as opposed to companies, where resources together with the core competencies built upon them serve to build a competitive advantage in the market. Courts do not compete for customers on their products or services. Jurisdiction is determined by regulations. What is more, the citizen has the right to the same services in each court. What may help standardization are voluntary courts networks, where courts will exchange good practices, managerial and organizational. Networking can also contribute to the organizational efficiency of courts of general jurisdiction through the rational use of resources and the harmonious interaction of all the elements of the organization.