Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 274-292).

Este trabalho tem como objetivo traçar um perfil da evolução das pesquisas sobre decisão judicial. Foi dada certa ênfase àquelas teorias e modelos influenciados pela teoria da decisão proposta pelo Realismo Jurídico Americano, ou seja, teorias e modelos que consideram fatores extrajurídicos que influenciam a decisão judicial e/ou que consideram que juízes decidem os casos primeiro com sua intuição, para somente depois racionalizar e fundamentar a decisão com argumentos jurídicos. O trabalho, em primeiro lugar, busca detalhar o pensamento realista, em seus aspectos históricos - como reação a formalismos existentes até então - e em seus aspectos teóricos - propondo (i.) uma teoria do direito; (ii.) instrumentalismo jurídico; e, especialmente (iii.) uma teoria da decisão judicial. Após a retomada do pensamento realista, o trabalho debate três modelos (ou teorias) modernos da decisão judicial: o modelo atitudinal, o modelo estratégico e o modelo psicológico. Posteriormente, e como último capítulo teórico, o trabalho aborda as novas possibilidades de estudo do comportamento judicial, especialmente trabalhos e experiências que utilizam a tecnologia e modelos computadorizados e algoritmos para a previsão de decisões. Alguns modelos computacionais serão examinados bem como alguns aspectos sobre base de dados e dados estruturados e não estruturados no direito, além de experiências com Mercados de Previsão e com a \"Sabedoria das Multidões\". Após toda as abordagens teóricas, o trabalho adentra em um capítulo prático e empírico, sobre o estudo da decisão judicial no Brasil. Foram analisados alguns elementos de todas as dissertações e teses de mestrado e doutorado em direito defendidas nos anos de 2011 a 2014, para que se pudesse entender como a matéria do comportamento judicial é abordada na academia jurídica brasileira. Conclui-se, com os dados, que a pesquisa sobre decisão judicial no Brasil ainda é incipiente, predominantemente normativa e quase nada se debate a respeito de teorias ou modelos descritivos ou preditivos, tais quais as que foram examinadas nos capítulos anteriores. / This dissertation aims to study the evolution of research on judicial decision. Special emphasis was placed on those theories and models influenced by the decision theory proposed by the American Legal Realism, which means those theories and models that consider extralegal factors that influence the judicial decision and/or theories and models that believe that judges decide cases first with their intuition, to only then rationalize and justify the decision using legal arguments. The dissertation first aims to break down the legal realist thought into two aspects: into its historical aspects, as being a reaction to existing formalisms, and into its theoretical aspects - as proposing (i.) a theory of law; (ii.) legal instrumentalism; and, finally (iii.) a theory of adjudication. After the analysis of the legal realism, the dissertation studies three modern models of judicial decision: the attitudinal model, the strategic model and the psychological model. Later, in the last theoretical chapter, this dissertation discusses new possibilities in the study of judicial decision, especially addressing works and experiences that uses technology, computer models and algorithms for predicting decisions. Some models will be examined in addition to some aspects of structured and unstructured data and databases in law, as well as experiences with Prediction Markets and with the \"Wisdom of the Crowds\". After this theoretical approach, this dissertation enters into a practical and empirical chapter on the research of judicial decision in Brazil. All masters and doctoral thesis and dissertations in Law defended in the years 2011-2014 were analyzed, so that one could understand how the matter of judicial behavior is addressed in the Brazilian legal academy. The empirical research concludes that the research on judicial decision in Brazil is still incipient, predominantly normative and there is almost nothing regarding descriptive or forecasting theories or models such as those examined in the previous chapters.

This thesis addresses the following question: What is the role of judicial training (JT) and performance appraisal (PA) in the organizational reform of judiciaries? The research studies the effects of various JT and PA mechanisms upon models of judicial organization. In light of the great diversity of judicial systems and variable configurations of JT and PA, the research strategy is twofold: First, the study focuses on the judiciaries of Chile and England and Wales being representatives of contrasting judicial organizational traditions. Second, I use typologies of judicial organization to focus on the main organizational aspects of judiciaries only, reducing the complexity of multidimensional analysis. After critically reviewing existing typologies of judicial organization, the thesis argues that these analytical constructs cannot fully explain contemporary changes in judiciaries, owing to their one-sided focus upon authority as a central organizational dimension. Rather, the thesis highlights the importance of the values and beliefs implicit in JT and PA arrangements in the normative evolution of the two judiciaries. The research employs a grounded theory methodology to uncover the organizational variables that underpin JT and PA arrangements in the two contexts, using them to develop a new typology, and to explain the role of these mechanisms in the organization of judiciaries. The empirical data shows that JT and PA bear normative content that can influence the reform of judiciaries. The functioning of these mechanisms also expresses different conceptions of authority, organizational cultures, and levels and types of formalization. The thesis proposes an organizational typology to analyse the role of JT and PA in changes to judicial organization. The results help to: 1) explain reforms in judicial organizational models; 2) understand how JT and PA contribute to such processes of change, and 3) highlight the relevance of the type of formalization for the normative analysis of the resulting organizational models.

Standard explanations of judicial behaviour (i.e. legal, rational-choice, attitudinal, and institutional models) are overly static and exogenous, interested in instances of sudden change in judicial behaviour, as triggered by appointments, legal reforms, or shifts in the political context. While these models are useful in understanding the external incentives affecting judicial behaviour, they are unsuitable for explaining sustained judicial empowerment beyond temporary strategic calculations. In response, recent 'ideational' approaches, especially studying constitutional courts, highlight the importance of judges' ideas about their role - not their ideologies or policy preferences - in instilling a mission, rather than an incentive-oriented view of the judicial function. Yet, despite their more dynamic approaches, those methods have overlooked how ideational change in the 'outside' world translates into change 'inside' this type of courts. Due to those limitations, this study proposes a complementary explanation of judicial empowerment: a theory of informal mandates and endogenous empowerment. Viewed through this lens, change and variation in judicial empowerment within and across cases are explained by the construction, expansion, and endurance - or absence and collapse - of collective internal understandings of the court's role and mission. Such understandings are developed as legal doctrines and articulated under broader informal mandates by 'mission leaders'. Gradually, these informal mandates can expand and gather majority support from strategic partnerships formed between 'mission leaders' and 'supporting leaders' - usually justices with high seniority. The more these informal mandates expand and endure inside the court, the less exogenous factors and strategic incentives over-determine its behaviour in the long-run. Judicial empowerment, thus, is better understood as a process that develops and expands gradually, endogenously, and informally, with a mission-oriented purpose. The theory is applied in the constitutional tribunals of Costa Rica, Chile, and Uruguay from 1990 to 2016. These countries have similar rule-of-law conditions, but their constitutional tribunals differ considerably in the strength and endurance of their informal mandates and, as a result, have attained different levels of judicial empowerment.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 1983. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 212-219). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

This article releases of Constitutional Interpretation No.613 of Grand Justices, Judicial Yuan.Discussion jurisdiction and legislative power of separation of power boundary.Judicial review since U.S.A.'s Marbury v.s Madison case is developed in 1803 .Safeguards the people's basic right not the illegal violation.The most countries introduces for the world. Grand Justices enjoy the good name of ¡§the constitution protector¡¨.Is only short of the public opinion to be authorized and counter-majoritarian diffculty, Causes the democratic validity to be subject to the question, between ¡§the judicature is positive¡¨ and ¡§the judicature is negative¡¨,it is become Judicial review development mechanism the important topic. Administration, legislation and judicial is also known as trias politica, Performing its own functions, doctrine of separation of powers for most important constitutional government principle, The Congress direct gathering people meaning indicated that.Is on behalf of the Popular Sovereignty for State agency, three read through the law, suffers unexpectedly declares invalid, and has the abstract standard potency, sends the Judicial review from ¡§the constitutional interpreter¡¨ to become ¡§the legislator¡¨ or ¡§framers of constitution¡¨ the negative appraisal. This article advocated that the Judicial review should distinguish the people's basic right or the pure institution in advance disputes and so on, is safeguarding the people's basic right case, should involve positively, being suitable of the non-judicial self-restraint principle. The Judicial review should not take the doctrine of political question the separation of power the only boundary, should accumulate the case type, develops standard of the difference, avoids fording into the pure institution jurisdiction dispute. Constitutional Interpretation article should not ¡§the legalization¡¨, be supposed to establish the mechanism of ¡§retires after meritorious service¡¨.

Univ., Diss.--Trier, 2006.

The special role courts play in a democracy requires designers of constitutions to consider the delicate trade-offs between democratic accountability and judicial independence. This dissertation analyzes the decisional consequences of state supreme court institutional structures. States utilize several types of election and elite reconfirmation, and each method carries a systematically different risk of incumbent defeat. My theory predicts that as reappointment uncertainty increases, judicial independence decreases. I define judicial independence as decisions made by judges using only considerations that are internal to the rule of law. I measure judicial independence by quantifying the external influence of partisan, elite, popular, and economic pressures applied to judges. I conclude by considering the normative implications of the empirical findings. Because judicial independence is a problem of optimization, not maximization, constitutional designers hope to strike a balance between some form of judicial accountability, popular constitutionalism, and judicial independence. / text

What are the causes and consequences of judicial empowerment? What motivates the political decision to delegate authority to independent judiciaries, and what explains the subsequent behavior of these institutions? Going against current trends in comparative judicial politics, this dissertation answers these questions by taking ideas seriously. Dominant accounts of judicial empowerment and behavior associate the emergence of rights protecting judiciaries with the actions of powerful political actors concerned with the protection and promotion of their political self-interests. In contrast, my analysis of Brazil and Colombia links the emergence of such institutions to the actions of groups and individuals who subscribe to the principled belief that courts should focus their efforts on the protection and promotion of constitutional guarantees. These ideational carriers use their resources to convince institutional designers of the suitability of their proposals, and exert powerful influence over the institutional outcome of constitutional transitions. These actors also influence the actions of newly empowered courts to the extent that they are able to entrench their ideational allies on the bench during the uncertainty of the transition. These findings contradict the arguments that judicial empowerment is designed to weaken electoral opponents or to insulate the political process from popular pressures, and that judges are rational-strategic actors whose main concern is to protect their institutional integrity. / text