Independent Judiciary Research Articles

From Juridical Idealism to Institutional Decay: The Rule of Law Conundrum

This article examines the rule of law as a foundation of Pakistan’s legal and constitutional system, endorsing fairness, accountability, and judicial independence. However, its enforcement is often weakened by political influence, inefficiencies in the judiciary, and unfair application of laws. Weak institutions, long court delays, and government overreach further reduce legal certainty and public trust in the justice system. The 26th Constitutional Amendment has raised serious concerns about judicial independence by changing how judges are appointed and increasing the risk of political control over the judiciary. This article also looks at how Pakistan’s legal system aligns with international laws while highlighting repeated challenges in its implementation. Outdated laws, unfair enforcement, and lack of transparency in the judicial process create governance issues and limit access to justice. The absence of fair judge appointments, proper legal aid, and strong accountability measures makes the situation worse. This article finally suggests the need for institutional reforms to protect judicial independence, improve court efficiency, and introduce digital case management. Strengthening alternative dispute resolution (ADR), protecting marginalized groups, creating independent oversight bodies, and increasing public legal awareness would help uphold the rule of law. A truly independent judiciary, clear separation of powers, and a strong commitment to protecting fundamental rights are necessary for a stable democracy. Without urgent reforms, the decline of judicial fairness and legal equality will continue, weakening Pakistan’s governance and social justice system.

Judicial powerplay: independence of judiciary under the shadow of illiberalism

ABSTRACT The Supreme Court of India, previously known as a belligerent counter-majoritarian institution, is now criticized for avoiding confrontation with the executive. Except for a few decisions, the Court has maintained a largely pro-government position between 2014 and 2024. Puzzlingly, this shift has occurred without the capture of the Court, as is often the case in illiberal democracies. To explain this phenomenon, I propose shifting the focus from institutional design features, which preoccupies studies on illiberal democracies, to unpacking the power dynamics within the judiciary. By analysing the Babri Masjid and Election Commission cases, I argue that judges function as strategic decision-makers, factoring political, social, and judicial power in their decisions. This feature of judicial craft best explains the Court’s behaviour in the last decade. Moreover, it reveals the limits of institutional design in securing judicial independence by highlighting that even isolated judiciaries cannot eliminate non-legal influences from their decision-making processes.

The Role of Judiciary (Judges) in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Cameroon: A Critical Analysis

The ratification and domestication of international human rights instruments are used as indices to determine a state's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. The judge as part of the judiciary is one of the stakeholders to fulfil this task. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, everyone has a role to play in the realisation of human rights. Everyone should respect the role of those who work for the protection of human rights, through an independent judiciary, who are impartial, neutral, and independent in the promotion and protection of human rights. Article 37(3) of the Cameroonian constitution of 1996 as amended provides for the independence of the judge which constitutes part of the judiciary. This is to the effect that the President of the Republic shall guarantee the independence of the Judiciary. He shall appoint members of the bench and the legal department. Nevertheless, judges are partially independent in their role in the promotion and protection of human rights. This raises issues such as contradiction, inconsistency, and difficulties for the judges to play in the promotion and protection of human rights. This article is based on the hypothetical premise that the role of the judges in the promotion and protection of human rights in Cameroon is ineffective. It seeks to examine the effectiveness of the role of judges in the promotion and protection of human rights. Adopting the Doctrinal and comparative research method, the paper concludes that under article 37(3) of the constitution, judges are partially independent in their role in the promotion and protection of human rights. It is submitted that the provision of Article 37(3) should be revisited to ensure the independence of the judiciary and judges in particular in the promotion and protection of human rights. In addition, the judiciary must undergo a paradigm shift from complacent and disturbing judicial inertia to judicial activism.

Impact of Natural Resource Rents and Governance on Economic Growth in Major MENA Oil-Producing Countries

This study analyzes the influence of natural resource rents, governance indicators, and their interactions on economic growth in twelve oil-producing countries in the MENA region from 2002 to 2021. Various versions of a panel ARDL model are estimated using PMG, MG, and DFE estimators. The results suggest that natural resource rents in MENA oil-producing countries positively affect long-term economic growth when accompanied by good governance. Government effectiveness and control of corruption also contribute positively to economic growth in the long run. Furthermore, financial development is found to enhance long-term economic growth. These findings highlight the potential of natural resources to drive economic growth when supported by strong institutions. To maximize natural resource rent benefits, MENA countries should improve governance indicators such as government effectiveness, control of corruption, and rule of law. This includes enhancing civil service competence, decision implementation, and managing political pressure. Key factors include revenue mobilization, infrastructure quality, policy consistency, and penalties for corruption. Ensuring equality under the law, transparent legal processes, an independent judiciary, and access to legal remedies are crucial for effective rule of law. Additionally, MENA countries should prioritize developing non-oil sectors like tourism, industry, technology, entertainment, transportation, and communication.

Populists before power: delegitimization strategies against independent judiciaries

ABSTRACT Research on the dangers of authoritarian populism for liberal democracy has almost exclusively focused on “populists in power” and those cases where dramatic changes have occurred. However, there is a notable gap in understanding the strategies and dangers of “populists before power”. We argue that authoritarian populists also pose a threat where they cannot effect constitutional change. By using “delegitimization strategies” they can significantly weaken liberal democratic institutions through a systematic erosion of public trust. Focusing on independent judiciaries as targets, we illustrate how attacks that link criticism of decisions, judges and judicial institutions with narratives of systemic failure may unfold and highlight the value of delegitimization within the larger populist tool kit. Thereby, the paper lays the conceptual foundation for an integrated research agenda on “populist before power”, including counter-reactions to delegitimization attempts, and contributes to the growing literature on the relationship between populism and democracy.

Judiciary independence: Why should conservation ecologists care?

AbstractWe discuss the impact of democratic political governance systems on ecological and conservation research, education, and practice, focusing on radical proposed changes to the judicial system in Israel. This judicial reform has already begun to restrict academic freedom and environmental laws, adversely affecting regulatory actions. We are concerned about the weakening enforcement of environmental laws, increased power to polluting industries, future defunding of ecological research and nature conservation programs, reduced cross‐border collaborations in ecological research, and restrictions on the academic teaching of ecology and evolution. Concerns related to Israel's unique biodiversity are particularly pressing in light of the constant threats from a rapidly growing population, high development pressures, and frequent military actions. International experience suggests that weakening judicial oversight of government actions in other countries is generating similar threats on a global scale. Therefore, ecologists and conservation biologists should actively be involved in the protection of liberal democracies and judicial independence.

Regarding Decisions and Legal Efforts at the State Administrative Court

Indonesia as a rule of law requires all actions or deeds of the authorities, therefore Indonesia has an independent judiciary in administering judicial power to uphold the law. In Indonesia, the State Administrative Court was formed with the aim of realizing the nation's and state's life order which guarantees the equality of citizens in the law. The research method used at this writing is to use normative legal research methods. where normative legal research here can be interpreted as research aimed at examining the quality of the legal norms themselves. In the state administrative court, of course, there are matters regarding decisions and legal remedies. Therefore it can be defined that a decision according to the legal dictionary is the result of examining a case. Meanwhile, the implementation of decisions in law is a determinant of the success of the judicial control system on government attitudes and actions in the system of public protection against government actions. In addition to the existence of a decision, it is also accompanied by legal remedies where legal remedies are the right of the defeated party not to accept the court's decision, in the form of resistance or appeal or cassation or the right to submit a request for review in the case of demanding the method stipulated in the law.

The formation of the judiciary independence in the Russian Empire (18th century — mid-19th century)

The paper, based on an analysis of the legislative acts of the Russian State, considers the historical and legal problem of the formation of an independent court as a separate branch of government in the system of the state apparatus of the Russian Empire and as the principle of ensuring the rule of law in the administration of justice. The period from the 18th century. until the first half of the 19th century. became key in the development of the judicial system of Russia, covering three significant stages, each of which introduced new procedures and principles that contribute to the improvement of justice. The first stage (the beginning of the 18th century — the third quarter of the 18th century) was characterized by the reforms aimed at separating judicial functions into a separate branch of government, which allowed the judicial system to become more independent from other elements of state power. This separation was an important step towards the formation of the principle of separation of powers that was necessary to ensure justice and legality. The second stage (the end of the 18th century — the first quarter of the 19th century) was marked by the formation of the fundamental principles of the image of an independent judiciary. The judicial system, based on the principles of legality, electability and humanism, has become an integral part of the State. At the third stage (the second quarter — the middle of the 19th century), an important aspect of the transformation was the emergence of specialized tribunals. Those changes also affected broader aspects of the judicial system aimed at strengthening its independence and effectiveness. The historical path traveled by the judicial system of the Russian Empire to independence in the 18th century — the middle of the 19th century laid the foundations for further changes in the country’s legal system, which ultimately contributed to the formation of a more humane and fairer judiciary. Elements of continuity of legislation found their way into the judicial reform of 1864.

MULTIPLICATION CHALLENGES ON THE DEMOCRACY OF SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka’s democracy faces significant challenges, particularly in the wake of the 2022 economic crisis and political unrest. Since gaining independence in 1948, the country has struggled with issues such as executive overreach, corruption, and economic mismanagement. These problems have weakened democratic institutions and deepened public distrust. The research examines the impact of the concentration of power in the executive branch, especially following constitutional changes like the 20th Amendment, which limited checks and balances. The 2022 economic collapse intensified public dissatisfaction, leading to widespread protests against the ruling class. The study uses both primary and secondary data. Primary data includes interviews with civil society experts, political analysts, and legal professionals, providing insights into socio-political dynamics. Secondary data comprises constitutional amendments, government reports, and legislative documents to trace governance changes. Findings reveal that weak political institutions and corruption undermine democracy, even as external pressure for reform grows. Key issues include a lack of judicial independence, exclusion of marginalized ethnic groups, and poor governance. The study underscores the need for political and civil society collaboration to rebuild public trust and strengthen democratic values. Reforms focusing on reducing corruption, ensuring an independent judiciary, and promoting inclusivity are essential for long-term democratic stability. Without decisive action, the vision of a united, democratic Sri Lanka remains at risk.

Failure of Judicial Independence is the Failure of Doctrine of Trichotomy in Pakistan

In Parliamentary form of Government, the independence of judiciary is just a dream, as direct involvement of politicians and other established institutions can be observed in it. The concept of separation of powers given by Montesquieu though based upon logics but cannot be implemented without the principle of check and balance. The notion of term ‘justice’ generally springs the idea of court and notion of term ‘court’ brings about the concept of a ‘Judge’; a neutral, un-biased, upright, honest, a person of integrity presiding the court chair. Judge is a protector of public’s interest and a canon of hope in demise. Appointment of judges is a primary factor which effects the independence and performance of judicial bodies. This appointment should be free from every kind of influence and interference so that the administration of justice is not hindered. Any external influence in the appointment procedure automatically makes the appointed judge slightly biased, which may be due to various factors like fear, favor, and indebtedness. The appointment procedure which the law gave after 18th and 19th amendment may be such that it gives an influence-free effect but practical applicability differs from the provisions in law due to some prevalent informal practices. The recent 26th amendment has paved way to more interference from the executive branch in the appointment procedure, resulting in curtailed independence of judiciary. A scrutinized and transparent system of appointment based on merit and certain legislative reforms needs to be introduced and implemented in the society to foster justice system and ensure independence of judiciary.

Independence of Judiciary in Malaysia and Pakistan: The Way Forward

Independence of Judiciary in Malaysia and Pakistan: The Way Forward

Judicial Powerplay: Independence of Judiciary under the Shadow of Illiberalism

Judicial Powerplay: Independence of Judiciary under the Shadow of Illiberalism

Beyond Landes-Posner Model: Modelling Independent Judiciary based on Social Choice Theory

Beyond Landes-Posner Model: Modelling Independent Judiciary based on Social Choice Theory

Examining the Separation of Powers: The Three Organs of Government in Somalia: The Case Study Independent Judiciary

Examining the Separation of Powers: The Three Organs of Government in Somalia: The Case Study Independent Judiciary

The potential impact of Loper v. Raimondo decision removing agency deference on natural resource management

The recent Supreme Court decision in Loper v Raimondo overturned the long-standing Court ruling establishing novel legal precedents referred to as “Chevron deference,” which compels the Court to allow for broad authority to U.S. administrative agencies deference in the interpretation of statutes and regulations. Members of the Court, critical of the prior rule, state that this deference held by agencies grants them a power not authorized by the Administrative Procedures Act or the Constitution, that being the power to interpret the law by defining their meaning where the document’s drafting was unclear. Thus reducing authority by an independent judiciary. Critics of the current decision argue that it diminishes the use of technological expertise held by the agencies in interpreting laws. Opponents counter that the decision restores the courts expertise in engaging in the various methods necessary to perform the statutory review, up to and including agency science and interpretation as part of their decision process, without exclusively relying on the agency interpretation as the only permissible one, which is argued to be a more balanced approach. It is hoped that the Loper decision will reduce the potential to abuse deference as they may push interpretations beyond the legislature’s goals or fail to interpret vague legislative language appropriately. Furthermore, legislatures may be encouraged to develop statutes that guide agencies that align with the electorate’s views and provide the predictability to support business development.

The “Case” for Independent Courts: The Insurance Theory of Judicialization in Autocracies

Abstract Why would authoritarian rulers allow for an independent judiciary that could constrain their power? This study extends the insurance theory of judicial independence to autocratic contexts, arguing that when leaders perceive a higher risk of losing office, they become more likely to tolerate or create independent courts as a safeguard against potential post-exit reprisals. Using a novel two-stage analytical approach, I construct a hazard rate for each country year from the Geddes et al. (2014) autocratic regime dataset, based on factors directly observable to autocratic leaders. This hazard rate serves as a proxy for perceived risk of losing power. My findings provide robust evidence that higher perceived risk is significantly associated with greater judicial independence in autocratic regimes, even when controlling for economic development, regime longevity, and court age. This research offers crucial insights into autocratic governance, demonstrating that promoting judicial independence can be a calculated strategy for regime survival rather than merely a democratic concession.

Migrant Rights Protections and Their Implementation in 45 Countries

To what extent do national governments protect the human rights of migrants, and what are the political and economic circumstances associated with more robust protection? To address these questions, we leverage a rigorous, novel database of migrant rights derived from international laws and standards. We evaluate the extent to which 64 indicators—divided into 17 different categories of migrant rights—appear in national statute and case law in 45 of the world's principal destination states. We find that 61% of the indicators of migrant rights in the Migrant Rights Database, derived from the international human rights baseline, are reflected in the letter of national law—nearly two out of every three. However, we also find that national authorities implement these de jure protections 71% of the time. Taken together, about 44% of migrant rights are both protected and implemented in the countries examined. In a correlational analysis, we find that governments tend to protect more rights when their countries are more democratic, maintain more independent judiciaries, protect more rights in their constitutions, ratify more human rights treaties, permit stronger civil society, and are characterized by more political stability. There is also a weak trade-off between de jure migrant rights protections and the number of migrants a country admits.

Anti-Science Populism Versus Brazil's Covid-19 Vaccination Program: A Tale of Two Pandemic Stories

Can civil servants protect the administrative state from illiberal populism? We argue that bureaucratic success in fending off illiberal populism necessitates both a supportive institutional environment and overcoming populist rhetoric meant to undermine public confidence in policy expertise. The Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil is a case study of populist antipathy toward a professional public health service. Brazil's public health officials were able to defy Jair Bolsonaro's obstruction of a Covid-19 mass vaccination program thanks to institutions characterised by insulation from executive reprisal, decentralised health care provision, and an independent judiciary. However, civil servant resistance was less effective in nullifying Bolsonaro's anti-vaccine rhetoric: Even as most Brazilians received Covid-19 vaccines, vaccination rates remained associated with electoral support for Bolsonaro and overall vaccine hesitancy increased. The Brazilian case suggests the power of populist rhetoric to undermine pluralist public administration by attacking its epistemic foundation, even in a context favorable to bureaucratic resistance.

Populism and the Erosion of Democratic Checks and Balances: A Systematic Literature Review across Regions

Populism has emerged as a significant challenge to democratic governance worldwide, as populist leaders seek to undermine checks and balances and consolidate power. This systematic literature review analyzes how populist movements weaken democratic institutions across different regions, focusing on the erosion of judicial independence, legislative oversight, media freedom, and human rights. This study examines case studies from Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, and the United States, revealing how populist leaders centralize authority, manipulate legal frameworks, and exploit societal grievances to sideline democratic norms. Populist rhetoric often frames democratic institutions as elitist and detached from the interests of the "true people," justifying actions that concentrate executive power and limit accountability. This impact extends beyond national borders and affects international law and global governance. In response, civil society, independent judiciaries, the media, academia, and international organizations play crucial roles in defending democratic values and building resilience against populist encroachment. Strategies such as enhancing legal protection, promoting civic education, strengthening oversight bodies, and reforming electoral systems are essential for countering populist threats. This study highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to address the root causes of populism's appeal and protect democratic institutions. Further research should explore how populists exploit digital media and the effectiveness of resistance strategies and conduct comparative analyses across regions to develop robust defenses against the erosion of democracy.

Effective justice as a law-based state feature

The article considers the concept of law-based state as a basis for justice effectiveness analysis. The necessity of researching the concept of a law-based state prior to covering the judicial system as a characteristic of a law-based state is methodologically justified. It is emphasized that for the development of Ukrainian legal science it is extremely important to investigate how exactly the effectiveness of justice is related to the extent to which Ukraine corresponds to the ideals of the law-based state, especially in the conditions of modern transformations. It is noted that a law-based state is based on the rule of law, the separation of powers, human rights and freedoms protection, and the independence of the judiciary. The theoretical and practical aspects of a law-based state functioning are considered, in particular the role of constitutionalism and legal mechanisms of control. The article emphasizes the importance of justice as a central element of a law-based state, which ensures the protection of citizens’ rights and control over the actions of state authorities. It was noted that in the context of a law-based state formation the effectiveness of justice acts as an indicator allowing to assess how successfully the ideals of the rule of law and the protection of human rights are implemented. The main criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of justice are determined, namely the independence of judges, access to justice, and fairness of decisions. The connections between effective justice and the principles of the rule of law and its role in a democratic society are covered. It is indicated that in the conditions of reforming the judicial system in Ukraine, the issue of maintaining a balance between the independence of courts and their accountability to society has not only domestic political significance, but also directly affects the international image of Ukraine and the process of European integration. It is summarized that effective justice is one of the most important indicators of a law-based state development. It ensures the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, contributes to the stability of society and the development of democracy. In order to achieve effective justice, it is necessary to constantly work on the legislation improving, qualifications of judges extension, and judiciary independence ensuring.