Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts

A Cross-Country Examination of Institutional Constraints on Judges

Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Law, Comparative, Legal Profession, Constitutional
Cover of the book Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie, Oxford University Press
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie ISBN: 9780190466404
Publisher: Oxford University Press Publication: July 25, 2017
Imprint: Oxford University Press Language: English
Author: Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
ISBN: 9780190466404
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publication: July 25, 2017
Imprint: Oxford University Press
Language: English

Judicial decision-making may ideally be impartial, but in reality it is influenced by many different factors, including institutional context, ideological commitment, fellow justices on a panel, and personal preference. Empirical literature in this area increasingly analyzes this complex collection of factors in isolation, when a larger sample size of comparative institutional contexts can help assess the impact of the procedures, norms, and rules on key institutional decisions, such as how appeals are decided. Four basic institutional questions from a comparative perspective help address these studies regardless of institutional context or government framework. Who decides, or how is a justice appointed? How does an appeal reach the court; what processes occur? Who is before the court, or how do the characteristics of the litigants and third parties affect judicial decision-making? How does the court decide the appeal, or what institutional norms and strategic behaviors do the judges perform to obtain their preferred outcome? This book explains how the answers to these institutional questions largely determine the influence of political preferences of individual judges and the degree of cooperation among judges at a given point in time. The authors apply these four fundamental institutional questions to empirical work on the Supreme Courts of the US, UK, Canada, India, and the High Court of Australia. The ultimate purpose of this book is to promote a deeper understanding of how institutional differences affect judicial decision-making, using empirical studies of supreme courts in countries with similar basic structures but with sufficient differences to enable meaningful comparison.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

Judicial decision-making may ideally be impartial, but in reality it is influenced by many different factors, including institutional context, ideological commitment, fellow justices on a panel, and personal preference. Empirical literature in this area increasingly analyzes this complex collection of factors in isolation, when a larger sample size of comparative institutional contexts can help assess the impact of the procedures, norms, and rules on key institutional decisions, such as how appeals are decided. Four basic institutional questions from a comparative perspective help address these studies regardless of institutional context or government framework. Who decides, or how is a justice appointed? How does an appeal reach the court; what processes occur? Who is before the court, or how do the characteristics of the litigants and third parties affect judicial decision-making? How does the court decide the appeal, or what institutional norms and strategic behaviors do the judges perform to obtain their preferred outcome? This book explains how the answers to these institutional questions largely determine the influence of political preferences of individual judges and the degree of cooperation among judges at a given point in time. The authors apply these four fundamental institutional questions to empirical work on the Supreme Courts of the US, UK, Canada, India, and the High Court of Australia. The ultimate purpose of this book is to promote a deeper understanding of how institutional differences affect judicial decision-making, using empirical studies of supreme courts in countries with similar basic structures but with sufficient differences to enable meaningful comparison.

More books from Oxford University Press

Cover of the book Buddhist Warfare by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Tolerating Intolerance by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Wuthering Heights by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book The Happiness Effect by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Implacable Foes by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Scholarship and Christian Faith by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Moving to Opportunity by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book A Brief History of the Paradox by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book The Multilingual Internet by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book The Omega Files Short Stories Level 1 Oxford Bookworms Library by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book The Other One Percent by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Ian Fleming's Commandos by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book When Children Refuse School by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
Cover of the book Heart of Buddha, Heart of China by Andrew J. Green, Benjamin Alarie
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy