Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management
<p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of it...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Ingo Keilitz [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: International Journal for Court Administration - International Association for Court Administration, 2010, 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:9 ; year:2018 ; number:3 ; pages:23-36 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.18352/ijca.280 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ033782172 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ033782172 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502080232.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230227s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.18352/ijca.280 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a K1-7720 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Ingo Keilitz |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t International Journal for Court Administration |d International Association for Court Administration, 2010 |g 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 |w (DE-627)1760611425 |x 21567964 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2018 |g number:3 |g pages:23-36 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2018 |e 3 |h 23-36 | ||
| author_variant |
i k ik |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:21567964:2018----::iwnjdcaidpnecadconaiiyhogteesfefra |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
K |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.18352/ijca.280 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K1-7720 Ingo Keilitz verfasserin aut Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In International Journal for Court Administration International Association for Court Administration, 2010 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 (DE-627)1760611425 21567964 nnns volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa kostenfrei https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 9 2018 3 23-36 |
| spelling |
10.18352/ijca.280 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K1-7720 Ingo Keilitz verfasserin aut Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In International Journal for Court Administration International Association for Court Administration, 2010 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 (DE-627)1760611425 21567964 nnns volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa kostenfrei https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 9 2018 3 23-36 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.18352/ijca.280 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K1-7720 Ingo Keilitz verfasserin aut Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In International Journal for Court Administration International Association for Court Administration, 2010 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 (DE-627)1760611425 21567964 nnns volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa kostenfrei https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 9 2018 3 23-36 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.18352/ijca.280 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K1-7720 Ingo Keilitz verfasserin aut Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In International Journal for Court Administration International Association for Court Administration, 2010 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 (DE-627)1760611425 21567964 nnns volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa kostenfrei https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 9 2018 3 23-36 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.18352/ijca.280 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K1-7720 Ingo Keilitz verfasserin aut Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence In International Journal for Court Administration International Association for Court Administration, 2010 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 (DE-627)1760611425 21567964 nnns volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa kostenfrei https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 9 2018 3 23-36 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In International Journal for Court Administration 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 |
| sourceStr |
In International Journal for Court Administration 9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36 volume:9 year:2018 number:3 pages:23-36 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
International Journal for Court Administration |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Ingo Keilitz @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760611425 |
| id |
DOAJ033782172 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ033782172</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080232.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.18352/ijca.280</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ033782172</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K1-7720</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ingo Keilitz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a"><p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p<</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal for Court Administration</subfield><subfield code="d">International Association for Court Administration, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760611425</subfield><subfield code="x">21567964</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:23-36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">23-36</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
K - Law |
| author |
Ingo Keilitz |
| spellingShingle |
Ingo Keilitz misc K1-7720 misc Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| authorStr |
Ingo Keilitz |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760611425 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
K1-7720 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
21567964 |
| topic_title |
K1-7720 Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction |
| topic |
misc K1-7720 misc Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc K1-7720 misc Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| topic_browse |
misc K1-7720 misc Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction misc Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
International Journal for Court Administration |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760611425 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
International Journal for Court Administration |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760611425 |
| title |
Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ033782172 (DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa |
| title_full |
Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| author_sort |
Ingo Keilitz |
| journal |
International Journal for Court Administration |
| journalStr |
International Journal for Court Administration |
| callnumber-first-code |
K |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
23 |
| author_browse |
Ingo Keilitz |
| container_volume |
9 |
| class |
K1-7720 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Ingo Keilitz |
| doi_str_mv |
10.18352/ijca.280 |
| title_sort |
viewing judicial independence and accountability through the “lens” of performance measurement and management |
| callnumber |
K1-7720 |
| title_auth |
Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| abstract |
<p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< |
| abstractGer |
<p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< |
| abstract_unstemmed |
<p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p< |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280 https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280 https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
1760611425 |
| callnumber-subject |
K - General Law |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.18352/ijca.280 |
| callnumber-a |
K1-7720 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:38:04.259Z |
| _version_ |
1803587927945510912 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ033782172</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080232.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.18352/ijca.280</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ033782172</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K1-7720</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ingo Keilitz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Viewing Judicial Independence and Accountability through the “Lens” of Performance Measurement and Management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a"><p<<em<This article is a review of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary’s (ENCJ) framework and vision of the independence, accountability, and transparency of the judiciaries in member states of the European Union. Its purpose is to aid ENCJ in the further development of its indicators of judicial independence and accountability. The focus of the article is on performance measurement and management (PMM) as seen, depending on one’s views, either as an instrument for strengthening judicial independence or, alternatively, an instrument for reigning in the power of the judiciary and threatening its independence. The article begins with a general discussion of judicial independence, accountability, and transparency as seen through the “lens” of PMM. It continues with a critical review and assessment of the conceptual framework of the ENCJ’s 22 indicators and 64 sub-indicators of judicial independence and accountability and identifies several shortcomings that decrease the utility of the framework. It urges a rethinking of the conceptual framework and proposes an alternative model – an input/output/outcome “logic model” --more amenable to understanding and improving indicators of judicial independence and accountability. It makes four recommendations aimed at a better alignment of ENCJ’s framework of indicators with principles and practices of modern PMM. The article concludes with a warning about troubling developments at a higher level of governance and politics that some see as a retreat from democracy and the rule of law in Europe and in many other parts of the world, one that poses an existential threat to the judiciary as a coequal partner in government.</em<<strong<<em<</em<</strong<</p<</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Performance Measurement and Management, European Network for Councils of the Judiciary, Indicator Construction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal for Court Administration</subfield><subfield code="d">International Association for Court Administration, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2018), 3, Seite 23-36</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760611425</subfield><subfield code="x">21567964</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:23-36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.280</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b3befd8a235c474cbae0b1ac0751e1fa</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/280</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2156-7964</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">23-36</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401636 |