Model Of Adjudication Research Articles

Idea oraz istota kontroli sądowoadministracyjnej (zagadnienia wybrane)

The article discusses selected issues regarding court-administrative control. The Polish perspective has been chosen as a reference point for the deliberations. The main problem is the concept of court-administrative control. It seems that this category determines the functioning of the administrative justice system. The essence of court-administrative control was presented based on Polish regulations: the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the Law on the System of Administrative Courts and the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts. The essay also presents the idea of court-administrative control – also from a comparative perspective, with reference to the German and French models. The principle of separation of powers has become a critical point of reference. It turned out that it does not contradict the presented understanding of the concept of court-administrative control. The approach to control was compared with possible models of adjudication: cassatory and reformatory adjudication. Thinking about a certain idea of administrative justice, this is probably the most basic determinant of the role and functions of this branch of the justice system. The right to a court – its understanding and possible scope – is also important for the conducted considerations.

Abstract 13880: Natural Language Processing for Adjudication of Heart Failure Hospitalizations in a Multi-Center Clinical Trial

Background: The gold standard for outcome adjudication in clinical trials is chart review by a physician clinical events committee (CEC), which requires substantial time and expertise. Automated adjudication by natural language processing (NLP) may be a more resource-efficient alternative. We previously developed the Community Care Cohort Project (C3PO) NLP model to adjudicate heart failure (HF) hospitalization within one healthcare system. Aim: To externally validate the C3PO NLP model against CEC adjudication in the INVESTED trial Methods: The INVESTED trial evaluated influenza vaccination in 5260 patients with cardiovascular disease at 157 North American sites. A central CEC of 21 physicians adjudicated the cause of hospitalizations from medical records. We applied the C3PO NLP model to 4060 INVESTED medical record dossiers and evaluated agreement between the NLP and final consensus CEC HF adjudications by kappa statistic, sensitivity and specificity. We fine-tuned the C3PO NLP model (C3PO+INVESTED) and trained a de novo model in half the INVESTED hospitalizations, and evaluated these models in the other half. NLP performance was benchmarked to CEC reviewer inter-rater reproducibility. Results: 1074 hospitalizations (26%) were considered HF by the CEC. There was high agreement between the C3PO NLP and CEC HF adjudications (agreement 87%, kappa 0.69). C3PO NLP model sensitivity was 94% and specificity was 84%. The fine-tuned C3PO and de novo NLP models demonstrated agreement of 93% and kappa of 0.82 and 0.83, respectively. CEC inter-rater reproducibility was 94% (kappa 0.85). Conclusion: In external validation, a single-center NLP model for HF adjudication was accurate relative to the gold-standard CEC in an external multi-center clinical trial. Fine-tuning the model improved agreement to the level of human reproducibility. NLP may improve the efficiency of future multi-center clinical trials by accurately adjudicating clinical events at scale.

A Model for the World: The Austrian Constitutional Court Turns 100

Abstract The design of constitutional courts usually shows a specific concern for independence from political actors and for pluralism on the bench. We argue that many institutional features of today’s constitutional courts can be traced back to the Austrian Constitutional Court (the first of its kind, which celebrated 100 years in 2020) and even further still to its predecessor, the Austrian Imperial Court of Justice of 1867. Strikingly, judicial independence is to be guaranteed against the existing judiciary as well, which is why constitutional courts often stand apart from the traditional judicial bureaucracy. Pluralism on the bench is to be ensured by specific criteria of eligibility, opening the constitutional court judgeship to a wider set of candidates (eg, attorneys, professors, civil servants), but also via institutional arrangements that make it easy for outsiders to join the court in the first place (eg, by allowing to continue one’s job or by not requiring residence at the court’s seat). Recounting the story of the Austrian model of constitutional adjudication in an unprecedented attempt to combine Austrian legal history with the structure and process of today’s constitutional courts around the world, this paper also highlights how relatively minor features of court organization contribute to the overarching goal of ensuring the independence of the court and pluralism within the court.

The Model of Adjudication by Administrative Courts in Poland

This research concerns the model of judicial proceedings by Polish administrative courts. Article purpose is to analyze the administrative court in Poland, to compare it with the Ukrainian one, to investigate the effectiveness and possibilities of intervention of the administrative court in the sphere of powers of other authorities. Administrative justice in Poland consists of voivodship administrative courts, which hear cases in the first instance, and the Supreme Administrative Court as a court of second instance. The author assumed that the introduction of a mixed model of judicial practice of administrative courts effectively fulfills the main goal of administrative proceedings, which is to protect individual rights from the arbitrariness of public administration bodies. The intrusion of the administrative court into the sphere of powers of the authorities is justified by the effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary. This allows the complainant to get a decision on the merits much faster. The mixed model of judicial practice of Polish administrative courts allows more effective implementation of the protection of individual rights. The analysis of the issue was carried out using theoretical-legal and historical-legal methods.

Making Law Possible

Making Law Possible

Law and order: the timing of mitigating evidence affects punishment decisions

When we hear about a transgression, we may consider whether the perpetrator’s individual circumstances make their transgression more understandable or excusable. Mitigating circumstances may reduce the severity of punishment that is deemed appropriate, both intuitively and legally. But importantly, in courts of public opinion and of law, mitigating information is typically presented only after information about a perpetrator’s transgression. We explore whether this sequence influences the force of mitigating evidence. Specifically, in two studies, we examined whether presenting evidence about a perpetrator’s background before or after evidence of their violation influenced how severely U.S. participants punished perpetrators. In Study 1 (N = 132), evidence about the perpetrator’s mitigating circumstances reduced punishment only when it was presented before evidence about the perpetrator’s violation. Study 2 (N = 316) additionally revealed this moderating effect of presentation order across a variety of premeditated and impulsive violations. These findings are consistent with person-centered theories of punishment and with the Story Model of adjudication.

The Court of Justice of the European Union in the Case Law of the Polish Constitutional Court: The Current Breakdown in View of Polish Constitutional Jurisprudence Pre-2016

The current crisis in the relationship between the Polish Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is of crucial significance for the process of regional integration based on the values of liberal democracy taking place in the EU. The constitutional crisis in Poland that began in the end of 2015 has challenged the systemic position of the Polish Constitutional Court. It resulted in a new model of constitutional adjudication, and in this new model the Constitutional Court, stripped of its counter-majoritarian power, cannot be perceived as the guardian of liberal democracy. This article postulates that the assessment of the present case law of the Polish Constitutional Court in European matters is made through the prism of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence pre-2016 (i.e. before the constitutional crisis). Based on that assumption, the current reversal in the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court concerning the ECJ is analysed and assessed. It is argued that the root cause of the constitutional crisis in Poland is the departure from the principles of liberal democracy in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, which are foundational—in light of the assumptions of the integration process—for the axiological identity of the EU and its Member States. This article also shows how the principles and concepts developed in the Polish constitutional jurisprudence pre-2016 could have served to avoid the current conflict with the ECJ, and how those notions are misused in the current jurisprudence of the Polish Constitutional Court.

Models of constitutional adjudication in the Baltic States

AbstractThis article examines the particularities of constitutional control models in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. On the thirtieth anniversary of regaining independence in 2020 for Latvia and Lithuania and in 2021 for Estonia, it is an opportune moment to consider the path taken by constitutional review institutions in each of the three Baltic States. Accordingly, the authors explore the establishment of the particular constitutional review model in each country and discuss the main features of constitutional adjudication: the status and the composition of the constitutional review bodies, the subjects entitled to file a petition, the main elements of their jurisdiction, and the legal effects of the constitutional judgements. The paper also looks briefly at the possible perspectives. The choice of a constitutional control model in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia results in differences in the place of a constitutional control institution in the judicial system, its special competence (other than constitutionality control of legal acts), and composition. However, regardless of which model of constitutional control was implemented, during the transitional period to a more democratic political regime, it has been vital to guarantee the fulfilment of the objectives of the constitutional control bodies without fear of legal or political obstacles and interference. These constitutional justice institutions in the respective country have step by step developed into authoritative bodies that have no peer, are irreplaceable, and are appreciated by state power institutions and the society.

Pragmatism, Logic, and Law

Pragmatism, Logic, and Law

Symbolic Speech and the First Amendment - A Proposal of Adjudicative Model

Symbolic Speech and the First Amendment - A Proposal of Adjudicative Model

Ascertaining Nonfatal Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Central Adjudication Versus Patient Insurance Claims.

The 21st Century Cures Act allows the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to utilize real-world data (RWD) to create real-world evidence (RWE) for new indications or post approval study requirements. We compared central adjudication with two insurance claims data sources to understand how endpoint accuracy differences impact RWE results. We developed a decision analytic model to compare differences in efficacy (all-cause death, stroke and myocardial infarction) and safety (bleeding requiring transfusion) results for a simulated acute coronary syndrome antiplatelet therapy clinical trial. Endpoint accuracy metrics were derived from previous studies that compared centrally-adjudicated and insurance claims-based clinical trial endpoints. Efficacy endpoint results per 100 patients were similar for the central adjudication model (intervention event rate, 11.3; control, 13.7; difference, 2.4) and the prospective claims data collection model (intervention event rate, 11.2; control 13.6; difference, 2.3). However, the retrospective claims linking model's efficacy results were larger (intervention event rate, 14.6; control, 18.0; difference, 3.4). True positive event rate results (intervention, control and difference) for both insurance claims-based models were less than the central adjudication model due to false negative events. Differences in false positive event rates were responsible for differences in efficacy results for the two insurance claims-based models. Efficacy endpoint results differed by data source. Investigators need guidance to determine which data sources produce regulatory-grade RWE.

In the Region of Middle Axioms: Judicial Dialogue as Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Mid-level Principles

This article addresses the use of foreign law in constitutional adjudication. We draw on the ideas of wide reflective equilibrium and public reason in order to defend an engagement model of comparative adjudication. According to this model, the judicial use of foreign law is justified if it proceeds by testing and mutually adjusting the principles and rulings of our constitutional doctrines against reasonable alternatives, as represented by the principles and rulings of other reasonable doctrines. By this, a court points to a wide reflective equilibrium, justifying its own interpretations with reasonable arguments, i.e. arguments that are acceptable from the perspectives defined by other constitutional doctrines, as endorsed by other courts. The point of a judicial engagement of this sort is to work out an overlap between different, reasonable, doctrines in the judicial forum, as part of a liberal forum of public reason. Here, the exercise of public reason filters out the premises of comprehensive doctrines so as to leave us in the region of an overlapping consensus: a region of mid-level principles that can be shared, notwithstanding the fact of legal pluralism.

100 Years of the Police in the Face of Petty Offences

Police in the face of petty offences - that is, a few words about how the law of petty offences has developed and what role of the Police is (and has been) in fighting against them since Poland regained its independence. Petty offences are minor acts and there are many of them in the surrounding area . These are actions that are very burdensome for residents and affect their sense of security. A petty offence is the most frequently committed prohibited act that society is, and has historically been, confronted with, and the main reason for citizens to report to police officers. Petty offences, in particular those related to disturbing public order, quiet hours , littering and drinking alcohol in prohibited areas are, due to their nature and frequency, the most burdensome acts in society. These acts are often combined with each other and are committed simultaneously. Due to the prevalence of petty offences, they affect the general public. The Code of Petty Offences contains a catalog of penalties and a number of other ways of responding to petty offenses committed. The ways in which the police react and practice have changed over the years, just as the whole of the broader law of petty offences has changed. Its development began after Poland gained its independence in 1918. The Constitution of March 1921 did not directly decide on the model of adjudication in cases of petty offences, but adopted an important principle - the citizen's right to a fair trial (Articles 72 and 98).

Administrative Functions of Implementation, Control of Administrative Decisions, and Protection of Rights

Abstract This essay includes a comparative analysis of the traditions of administrative law in Latin American and their impact on the contemporary scene and trends in the general orientations of its administrative justice systems. This analysis is limited to Latin American countries of Iberian origin under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“I/A Court H.R”). The method followed by the author is to point out the roles attributable to the administrative authorities and to attempt to identify a distinction in Latin America between the “administrative function of implementation”, “control of the legality of administrative decisions” (unrelated to any adjudicative function) and the “protection of rights” (by means of an adjudicative function) while examining their historical genesis and possible future trends. From that perspective, the text discusses certain administrative powers, such as disciplinary or other regulatory powers, and their forms of concrete application; the prerogatives and instruments of the authorities and of their decision-making employees in the exercise of the functions of implementation; the control of administrative decisions by those authorities themselves and by external bodies; and judicial and extrajudicial protection of rights against administrative decisions. The author concludes that Latin American administrative law, despite the fact that its civil-law substantive roots have always coexisted with judicial review typical of common law, is currently tending, on the one hand, to approximate the U.S. model of administrative adjudication and, on the other, to adapt to I/A Court H.R case law with respect to the administrative function of implementation in harmony with the fundamental right to good administration which, combined with a critical re-examination of diffuse control of the legality of administrative rules in court, would safeguard the true role of adjudicating bodies (administrative authorities or courts) in their function of protecting individual rights for the sake of more fair and equitable administrative justice.

Illustrating Swing Votes II: United States Supreme Court

We offer a graphical display of the swing votes between all actual and possible tight majorities of the United States Supreme Court from 1946 to 2016. We observe and ebb and flow of the number of 5–4 coalitions and swing votes. We also note various inconsistencies with the median voter theorem and incompatibilities with locational models of adjudication.

Street-level Bureaucrats and Coping Mechanisms.The Unexpected Role of Italian Judges in Asylum Policy Implementation

ABSTRACT The article aims to open the black box of the asylum determination process, focusing on asylum adjudication in courts and on actors implementing this specific policy frame: asylum judges. To assess the peculiarities of the Italian adjudication model and how judges concretely behave in shaping policy, we rely on the Street Level Bureaucracy (SLB) framework. The SLB perspective allows us to study the implementation of asylum adjudication from a bottom-up perspective, focusing on judges and their margin of discretion in processing asylum claims. This exploratory study aims to verify the proposed theoretical framework and to understand if courts and judges adopt a SLB behaviour, the reasons why they adopt such a behaviour and the scope of their discretion.

Дворкин о семантике правовых и политических понятий = Patterson D. M. Dworkin on Semantics of Legal and Political Concepts / пер. с англ. А. Б. Дидикина, С. А. Александрова

In a recent comment on H. L. A. Hart’s «Postscript» to The Concept of Law, Ronald Dworkin claims that the meaning of legal and political concepts maybe understood by analogy to the meaning of natural kind concepts like «tiger», «gold» and «water». This article questions the efficacy of Dworkin’s claims by challenging the use of natural kinds as the basis for a semantic theory of legal and political concepts. Additionally, in matters of value there is no methodological equivalent to the scientific method. Thus, there is little hope of finding hidden essences to explain the meaning of legal and political concepts. Finally, even if there are natural kinds, Dworkin’s arguments for their efficacy in jurisprudence are problematic and unpersuasive. The problem for Dworkin is that his embrace of natural kinds undermines the «fit» side of the fit/justification model of adjudication that lies at the heart of his theory of law

The Camel’s Dilemma. Critical Reflections on the Political Nature of Constitutional Courts

This essay deals with the issue of the “nature” of constitutional courts. It proposes a distinction between a “dynamic” and a “static” nature, hinging upon the Kelsenian image of the camel and the necessity to maintain an integrated qualitative and quantitative approach when analysing the Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. The roots of the European model of judicial review of legislation since the end of the 19^th century will be examined. Hence, the essay takes into consideration, on the one hand, the efforts of those legal scholars who aimed to include constitutional courts in the judicial sphere and, on the other, of those who have opposed such endeavours, considering a centralised constitutional court substantively a political body. Against this backdrop, the establishment of the Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Austria and the debate on the richterliches Prüfungsrecht in Germany are taken into account. Then, shifting to the post-World War II era, a comparison between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Italian Constitutional Court is undertaken, in order to analyse differences and similarities between two centralised models of constitutional adjudication in bridging law and politics.

Internet court's challenges and future in China

China established the world's first Internet court in Hangzhou in August 2017. Subsequently in 2018 Internet courts in Beijing and Guangzhou were established respectively. With the official establishment of these three Internet courts, China's electronic litigation advanced to a new stage.. Internet courts offer many advantages, and this innovative adjudication model has earned widespread approval for both its speedy acceptance of cases and speedy hearing of cases. This article analyzes the questions and challenges faced by Internet courts, proposes solutions such as compliance with three basic legal ethical principles, re-establishing the sense of presence and ritual of litigation, establishment of risk mitigation mechanisms between the legal system and technological systems to develop the ability for the construction of Internet courts in China.

The High Court of Malawi as a constitutional court: constitutional adjudication the Malawian way

ABSTRACT Constitutional adjudication in Malawi only became commonplace after the adoption of a new Constitution in 1994. Like many Anglophone countries, Malawi follows the decentralised model of constitutional adjudication. Under this arrangement, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear any civil or criminal matters, including constitutional matters. The Courts Act, however, requires the High Court to sit with an enhanced quorum when it is seized of cases that substantively relate to, or concern the interpretation and application of the Constitution. It is when the High Court sits with a reconfigured quorum that it is popularly referred to as the "constitutional court" (the Court). This article analyses constitutional adjudication in Malawi by focusing on the operation of the Court. Specifically, it analyses the scope of the Court's jurisdiction, the type of constitutional review that it conducts, the regulation of access to the Court, the forms of decisions and remedies that it grants, and the Court's independence. Keywords: constitutional law, constitutional adjudication, High Court of Malawi.