Abstract In order to make the limited manpower of judges concentrated on the core trialaffairs for the decrease or avoidance of the delay of cases, Judicial Yuan positivelypromote the Judicial Process Management System. Judicial process management isoriginally a system developed for the decrease of cases under delayed trial. Its centralthinking is that the judge will not start to intervene the trial until the case is close to thestage suitable for bringing to trial. The preparation work before that is to be positivelyhandled by a small number of judges and sufficient auxiliary manpower led by them. Asa result, the limited manpower of judges is able to concentrate their time and energy on oyer and judgment. Hence, the cases can be rapidly under trial, alleviating the caseburden of judges. This system has changed the traditional case separation model.Therefore, as from May 1, 2007 and June 1, 2007, Kaohsiung District Court and TaoyuanDistrict Court respectively started adopting this system to conduct trial handling of civilcases and criminal cases, with a trial period lasting for two years. In view of the localityfactor, and focusing on the Judicial Process Management System applied by Kaohsiung District Court to the handling of cases, the study just obtains materials from the localsources, and ttempts to employ the management implication to carry out this research,intending to construct a Judicial process Management System which is applicable to thecourts of Taiwan. Attempting to start the research from the angle of management, this paper adoptsthe research methods of literature analysis method, in-depth interview method and synthetic induction method, and combines them with multiple case analysis method to investigate and analyze the related problems. In the past, the judicial circle enormously stressed the cultivation of legal personnel and expertise, but obviously neglected the judicial administrative management. Along with the acceleration of reform steps, it is required to import administrative management system to the judicial circle. Focusing on the current predicaments of judicial administrative management in Taiwan, including the obstruction coming from the internal personnel and the restriction of external ordinance system, the study makes the related analyses, and expects to have an insight into the problems through the improvement way of the use of the readjusted human resources. The study pays concerns for, expands and increases the functions of legal supporting staff, and establishes the handling process of the judicial cases of Taiwan and the standard process of the time limit. Apart from absorbing the experience of the international advanced countries, the study cautiously and seriously considers the judicial culture itself in Taiwan, as well as the merits and demerits found in the cultivation restrictions of legal personnel. These two aspects are mutually integrated, hoping to bring greater progress to the judicial management policy of Taiwan, and turn it to be more complete. The construction of an efficient judicial institution has to be added with appropriate manpower and equipments. As observed from the experience of trial implementation of Judicial Process Management System, if it is hoped to pursue a rapid handling of cases, all the cases entering the court have to be strictly controlled, and promptly arranged to enter the trial procedures. The judges will not start to intervene the handling of cases until it is close to the stage suitable for bringing a case to trial. The study employs the concept of corporate operation management to promote Judicial Process Management System. The cases are to be handled by means of layering of team and division of labor. Let the human resources of the court perform the most effective distribution and use. In this way, the problems of serious accumulation of cases and poor efficiency of the trial of cases in different courts of Taiwan can be readily solved. In addition, to meet the concrete and objective conditions of the various courts of different grades in Taiwan, Judicial Process Management System has to be redesigned to meet the judicial process and methods of the local courts. Before the appearance of more positive and effective method, Judicial Process Management System can play a significant role in the process of judicial reform.

Not available / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 222-247). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2002. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xiii, 212 p.: ill. (some col.). Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: Lawrence Baum, Dept. of Political Science. Includes bibliographical references (p. 202-212).

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Clemson University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-91). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Boston University, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 190-203).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Direito, Curso de Pós-Graduação em Direito, 2016. / Submitted by Fernanda Percia França (fernandafranca@bce.unb.br) on 2017-05-02T15:57:39Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_RafaelMartinsEstorilio.pdf: 1447483 bytes, checksum: 1d86f0ca03d1ef885615defacce9c427 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Raquel Viana (raquelviana@bce.unb.br) on 2017-05-03T00:20:42Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_RafaelMartinsEstorilio.pdf: 1447483 bytes, checksum: 1d86f0ca03d1ef885615defacce9c427 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-03T00:20:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2016_RafaelMartinsEstorilio.pdf: 1447483 bytes, checksum: 1d86f0ca03d1ef885615defacce9c427 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-02 / Este trabalho trata do problema da supremacia judicial em relação ao exercício da revisão judicial. Quero entender porque os argumentos trazidos pelo apelo da constituição política “fora das cortes” foram ineficazes em combater efetivamente o discurso da supremacia judicial, como se as cortes seguissem surdas às reivindicações acadêmicas dos últimos 30 anos. Ao mesmo tempo, muito se fala no giro-linguístico na hermenêutica como remédio para conter discricionariedades judiciais. Mas inspirado na crítica de autores ao giro pragmático-linguístico, os quais nos convidam a repensar o conceito de nova hermenêutica, substituo a crítica da supremacia judicial para retornar ao problema da hermenêutica e do giro-linguístico, mas com semelhante finalidade. Olhando para a atuação expansiva em algumas ferramentas contemporâneas construídas na revisão judicial, a hipótese é a de que tais fundamentos justificaram o judiciário neste contexto de discricionariedade que a nova hermenêutica possibilita com o modelo sintático-pragmático da virada linguística. Aqui, a contradição anunciada: em seu projeto, a promessa era evitar o "solipsismo". Ao contrário, há inegável relação simbiótica entre judicialização da constituição e a nova hermenêutica, como dois lados de um elevado muro. Com isso, olhando para algumas das novas propostas institucionais, há alguma saída para o projeto perdido do constitucionalismo político diante dessas dificuldades oferecidas pelo recrudescimento da supremacia judicial pela hermenêutica? Desmistificando a autoridade da “nova hermenêutica” e da virada da filosofia da linguagem, são oferecidas alternativas para o ainda e necessário projeto em busca de uma constituição política. / This work deals with the problem of judicial supremacy in the exercise of judicial review. My intent is to understand why the arguments brought by the political constitutionalism appeal “outside the courts” were ineffective in opposition of the discourse of judicial supremacy, as if the courts follow deaf to the academic critics of the last 30 years. At the same time, much is said about the linguistic turn in hermeneutics as a solution to contain judicial discretions. But inspired by the criticism of authors on the pragmatic-linguistic turn, which invite us to rethink the concept of “new hermeneutics”, I replace the criticism of judicial supremacy returning to the issue of new hermeneutics in legal reasoning and its implications on the linguistic turn, but with a similar purpose. Looking at some expansive performance in contemporary tools built on judicial review by courts, the hypothesis is that such grounds justify the judicial discretion in this context of the new hermeneutic, made possible with the syntactic-pragmatic model of linguistic turn. Here the contradiction announced: in its project, the promise was to avoid the "solipsism". Instead, there are undeniable symbiotic relationship between judicialization of the constitution and the new hermeneutics, as two sides of a high wall. Hence, looking at some of the new institutional proposals, is there any way out for this lost project of political constitutionalism in face of these difficulties offered by the recrudescence of judicial supremacy by hermeneutics? Demystifying the authority of the "new hermeneutic" and the turn of the philosophy of language, is it offered alternatives to the further and necessary project in search of a political constitution.

The aim of this thesis is to contribute to analytical Jurisprudence by studying in depth a concept that is characteristically legal and, at the same time, both a traditional term of descriptive political analyses and familiar in ordinary non-technical usage. The concept selected for study is "judicial power". The intended point of the study is fourfold: (1) to illustrate a useful method of analytical jurisprudential enquiry: (2) to discover and illustrate the types of features, problems and lessons connected with the use of legal concepts, or of theoretical or commonsense concepts in a legal context: (3) to compare the approaches of descriptive theorists and of lawyers to those problems and features , and (4) to provide thereby some concrete evidence of the distinction (or absence of distinction) between legal thought, method and system, and the thought, method and system of commonsense and the purified commonsense no of descriptive theory. A long introductory chapter seeks to explicate these particular aims, and to place them in the context of contemporary analytical jurisprudence. In the first place, it argues that the sharp distinction, drawn by Prof. H. L. A. Hart, between descruotive statements or "statements of fact", and legal statements or "conclusions from rules", is misleading and ought to be abandoned as a solution for the puzzle it was put forward to resolve. This argument, if correct, clears the ground for a more-or-less straightforward comparison between the "descriptive" use of the term "judicial power" by political analyst from Aristotle to modern times, and the use of the same term in "conclusions of law" arrived at by Justices if the High Court of Australia in interpreting the Australian federal Constitution. Moreover, in the course of the argument it is suggested that the general criterion of the correctness of statements, legal or otherwise, is the absence of further relevant questions that would lead to a revision of the statement, so that an analysis of the special feature of legal language should not rely on the simple distinction put forward by Hart, but should seek to identify the general and special conditions surrounding the making of correct statements in legal as compared with other realms of discourse. Several such conditions are suggested a priori; legal discourse is distinguished from commonsense discourse by (1) the desire for a system in affairs; (2) the need to resolve disputes by giving final answers; (3) the consequent definition of terms, and limitation on further questions; (4) the consequent possibility of authority and precedent, further limiting questions, and providing (5) an actual system of definite terms and relations on which to base a transition to more abstract concepts expressing generically various systematic relationships possible between definite terms. A conclusion of the whole thesis is that such features or conditions of legal discourse may readily be identified in the history of the Australian discussions of judicial power.

No description available.