Judicial reform

Judicial reform is the complete or partial political reform of a country's judiciary. Judicial reform can be connected to a law reform, constitutional amendment, prison reform, police reform or part of wider reform of the country's political system.^[1]

Stated reasons for judicial reform include increasing of the independence of the judiciary, constitutionalism and separation of powers, increased speed of justice, increased fairness of justice,^[2] improved impartiality,^[3] and improving electoral accountability, political legitimacy and parliamentary sovereignty.^[4][5]

Areas of the judicial reform often include: codification of law instead of common law, changing between an inquisitorial system and an adversarial system, changes to court administration such as judicial councils or changes to appointment procedure, establishing mandatory retirement age for judges or increasing the independence of prosecutors from the executive.

Examples

Judiciary Act of 1789

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judiciary Act of 1789.[edit]

The existence of a separate federal judiciary had been controversial during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists had denounced the judicial power as a potential instrument of national tyranny. Indeed, of the ten amendments that eventually became the Bill of Rights, five (the fourth through the eighth) dealt primarily with judicial proceedings. Even after ratification, some opponents of a strong judiciary urged that the federal court system be limited to a Supreme Court and perhaps local admiralty judges. Congress, however, decided to establish a system of federal trial courts with broader jurisdiction, thereby creating an arm for enforcement of national laws within each state.^[6]

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.[edit]

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,^[7] frequently called the "court-packing plan",^[8] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.^[9] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years.

Judicial reform of Alexander II

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial reform of Alexander II.[edit]

The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and consistent of all his reforms (along with the military reform). A completely new court system and order of legal proceedings were established. The main results were the introduction of a unified judicial system instead of a cumbersome set of estates of the realm courts, and fundamental changes in criminal trials. The latter included the establishment of the principle of equality of the parties involved, the introduction of public hearings, the jury trial, and a professional advocate that had never existed in Russia. However, there were also problems, as certain obsolete institutions were not covered by the reform. Also, the reform was hindered by extrajudicial punishment, introduced on a widespread scale during the reigns of his successors – Alexander III and Nicholas II.^[10][11][12]

Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan.[edit]

The Judicial Reform Committee of South Sudan (JRC) was launched by the Government of South Sudan on 28 July 2022 to review laws, and to advise on judicial reforms and restructuring of the judiciary.^[13]

2023 Israeli judicial reform

These paragraphs are an excerpt from 2023 Israeli judicial reform.[edit]

The 2023 Israeli judicial reform is a set of five changes to the judicial system and the balance of powers in Israel that were proposed in January 2023. The intent of the measures is to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review, granting the government control over judicial appointments and limiting the authority of its legal advisors.^[14] The effort was led by Yariv Levin (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice) and Simcha Rothman (Chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee).

2024 Mexican judicial reform

These paragraphs are an excerpt from 2024 Mexican judicial reform.[edit]

The 2024 Mexican judicial reform is a series of constitutional amendments that restructured the judiciary of Mexico.^[15] The reform replaced Mexico's appointment-based system for selecting judges with one where judges, pre-selected by Congress, are elected by popular vote, with each judge serving a renewable nine-year term. It reduces the number of Supreme Court justices from 11 to 9 and limits their terms to 12 years. The reform also allows the use of "faceless" judges and establishes a new tribunal for judicial oversight and accountability, while significantly reducing benefits and salaries previously received by members of the judiciary.^[16][17] With its passing, Mexico became the first country to have elections for all judges.^[18][19]

The reform was put forward by the governing coalition, led by the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), with the goal of eliminating corruption in the judiciary.^[20] It faced significant resistance from opposition political parties, judicial workers, and international organizations, who argued that it threatened judicial independence.^[21][22] It sparked nationwide protests and strikes, even leading to the storming of the Senate on the day of the bill's vote.^[23][24]

Protests against Polish judiciary reforms

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Protests against Polish judiciary reforms.[edit]

Since 2017, a series of protests against judiciary reforms have occurred in Poland. Since Law and Justice took power in Poland in 2015, its influence rapidly extended to the judicial branch, through contended nominations that produced the 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis. The Law and Justice party argues that the reforms are needed to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, but the opposition, supported by a significant number of members of the judiciary, has been very critical of the reforms. The reforms have also been criticized by a number of international bodies.^[25][26] The European Commission invokes the Article 7 of the European Treaty against E.U. member Poland, denouncing recent judiciary reforms putting it under the political control of the ruling majority and citing "serious risk [to] the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers".^[27][28][29]

Romanian judicial reform

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Romanian judicial reform.[edit]

Recent decades have seen a surge in the birth of "supraterritorial institutions and associations",^[30] that have been gathered by their enactment of common law and practices. European Union's regional expansion into Southeastern Europe to include Romania is one such example. The community of European states has enacted treaties that have allowed them to unite politically and economically.

Scottish judicial reform

The period from 2012 to 2015 is the period of the Lord Presidency of Lord Gill whose agenda was to overhaul and modernise a failing judicial system.^[31] His initial Report dated from 2009, and followed a lengthy public consultation. His opinion was that the system as it stood was "outdated, expensive, unpredictable and inefficient."^[32] The principal statutory changes were contained in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

Judicial reform in Ukraine

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Judicial reform in Ukraine.[edit]

The reform was launched in 2014 after the Revolution of Dignity and the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election. The purpose of the reform is to bring the judiciary of Ukraine to European standards and to ensure the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens through timely, effective and fair resolution of legal disputes on the basis of the rule of law.^[33]

Other reforms

• 1960 Puerto Rican judicial reform referendum
• Administration of Justice Act
• Constitutional Reform Act 2005
• Supreme Court reform in the United States

See also

• Constitutionalism
• Constitutional economics
• Criminal justice reform
• Category:United States federal judiciary legislation
• Electoral reform
• Government failure
• Judicial activism
• Judicial independence
• Judicial interpretation
• Judicial review
• Political corruption
• Parliamentary sovereignty
• Regulatory capture
• Rule of law
• Rule according to higher law
• Security sector governance and reform