Advertisement

Obstacles and Opportunities—Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning

  • Mátyás BenczeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)

Abstract

How can we ‘measure’ the quality of judicial reasoning? Indeed, can we measure it at all? Or should we be satisfied with the ‘softer’ method of assessment when it comes to the quality of judicial motivation? These are the questions I address in this chapter. In the first part I justify the importance of quality assurance of judicial reasoning itself, independently from the other elements of adjudication. I then recap the possible objections to a project to assess the quality of justification (judicial independence, diversity of judicial styles, problem of measurability). I try to answer these challenges and I outline some examples of the possible forms of quality control over the reasoning activity of judges.

References

  1. Bencze M (2011) Elvek és gyakorlatok: jogalkalmazási minták és problémák a magyar bírói ítélkezésben. Gondolat Könyvkiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  2. Bódig M (2010) Legal theory and legal doctrinal scholarship. Can J Law Jurisprud 23:483–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown v. board of education (1954) Brown v. board of educationGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavallini D (2012) Le valutazioni di professionalità dei magistrati: prime riflessioni tratte da una ricerca empirica sui verbali del Csm. Riv Trimest Dirit E Proced Civ 66:1223–1250Google Scholar
  5. CCJE (2015) Opinion No. 18 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. CEPEJ The European Commission for the efficiency of justice. In: Eur. Comm. Effic. Justice CEPEJ. http://www.coe.int/T/dghl/cooperation/cepej/default_en.asp. Accessed 1 May 2017
  7. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s empire. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Engel C (2004) The impact of representation norms on the quality of judicial decisions. Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, BonnGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission EU Justice scoreboard. In: Eur. Comm. Effic. Justice CEPEJ. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm
  10. European Social Survey (2010) ESS Round Five. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=5. Accessed 1 May 2017
  11. Guraya SY (2013) Bandwagon of impact factor for journal scientometrics. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 8:69–71Google Scholar
  12. Hirschl R (2004) Towards juristocracy: the origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  13. Klaming L, Giesen I (2008) Access to justice: the quality of the procedure. Utrecht University School of Law, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Kühn Z (2004) Worlds apart: Western and Central European judicial culture at the onset of the European enlargement. Am J Comp Law 531–567Google Scholar
  15. Kühn Z, Matczak M, Bencze M (2015) EU law and central European judges. In: Bobek M (ed) Central European judges under the European influence. The transformative power of the EU revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 43–71Google Scholar
  16. de Lasser MS (2004) Judicial deliberations: a comparative analysis of transparency and legitimacy. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Matczak M, Galligan D (2005) Strategies of judicial review. Exercising judicial discretion in administrative cases involving business entities. E&Y Better Government ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  18. Matczak M, Bencze M, Kühn Z (2010) Constitutions, EU law and judicial strategies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. J Public Policy 30:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palumbo G, Giupponi G, Nunziata L, Mora-Sanguinetti JS (2013) Judicial performance and its determinants. In: Judic. Perform. Its determinants cross-ctry. Perspect. http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/judicial-performance.htm
  20. Perelman C (1966) What the philosopher may learn from the study of law. Nat Law Forum 11:1–12Google Scholar
  21. Perelman C (1977) L’Empire rhetorique: rhétorique et argumentation. Librairie philosophique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Rawls J (2005) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Savela A (ed) (2006) Evaluation of the quality of adjudication in courts of law: principles and proposed quality benchmarks quality: project of the courts in the jurisdiction of the court of appeal of Rovaniemi. Painotalo Suomenmaa, OuluGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheppele KL (2013) The rule of law and the Frankenstate: why governance checklists do not work. Governance 26:559–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephenson M (2001) Economic development and the quality of legal institutions. In: World Bank Online. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTINST/0,contentMDK:23103355~menuPK:1989584~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:1974062~isCURL:Y,00.html. Accessed 1 May 2017
  27. Summers RS, Taruffo M (1991) Interpretation and comparative analysis. In: MacCormic N, Summers R (eds) Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot, pp 461–510Google Scholar
  28. Teson FR (1984) International human rights and cultural relativism. Va J Int Law 25:869–898Google Scholar
  29. Van den Bos K, Van der Velden L, Lind A (2014) On the role of perceived procedural justice in citizens’ reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Rev 10:1–26Google Scholar
  30. Warren RK (2000) Public trust and procedural justice. Court Rev 37:12–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, Department of Legal Theory and Sociology of LawUniversity of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  2. 2.HAS Centre for Social SciencesCentre of Social Sciences, Institute for Legal StudiesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations