IZBOR SUDIJA – NEPRISTRASNOST I POLITIKA - komparativna analiza
Sažetak
Unutar velikih svetskih pravnih sistema traži se rešenje za najbolji način i metod odabira sudija kako bi se njime obezbedilo uspešno delovanje pravosuđa. Metod izbora sudija čvrsto je povezan sa zahtevom za osiguravanjem nezavisnosti i nepristrasnosti sudija. U ovom radu pokušavamo metodom komparativne analize istražiti ovo pitanje, te predočavanjem rešenja u engleskom, nemačkom, američkom i francuskom pravosuđu prikazati danas prevladavajuće međunarodne trendove.
U sistemu common law-a kao i u pravnim sistemima država koje primenjuju kontinentalno pravo na ovom polju mogu da se zapaze značajne promene, a iskustva tih država svakako mogu da posluže kao primer i post-socijalističkim državama. U proteloj deceniji se naročito promene u Engleskoj mogu smatrati radikalnima u odnosu na metod izbor sudija kakav je postojao u ranijim vekovima, ali nikako ne smeju da se smetnu s uma ni razvojni procesi u drugim analiziranim pravnim sistemima. Pitanje selekcije sudija vredno je posebno obazrivo regulisati tamo gde politička kultura ne stavlja ograničenja da se u sudske presude uključi bilo ko drugi, pa čak i neki spoljni faktor.
Reference
Herbert M. Kritzer; Courts, Justice, and Politics in England. In: Herbert Jacob –Erhard Blankenburg – Herbert M. Kritzer – Doris Marie Provine – Joseph Sanders: Courts Law and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1996., str. 81-176.
Kate Malleson: Modernizing the Constitution: Completing the Unfinished Business. In: Guy Canivet – Mads Andenas – Duncan Fairgrieve (ured.): Independence, Accountability and the Judiciary. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 2006, str. 152.
Harry Woolf: Judicial Review — The Tensions Between the Executive and the Judiciary. In: LQR, 1998., str. 114., 579.
Kate Malleson: Rethinking the Merit Principle in Judicial Selection. Journal of Law and Society, March 2006., str. 126-140.
Atiyah P. S.: Pragmatism and Theory in English Law, Stevens and Sons, London, 1987. str. 136.).
Alan Paterson – Chris Paterson: Guarding the Guardians. Centre Forum, London, 2012. str. 31.
J. Riedel: Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Careerof Judgesand Prosecutors in Germany. In: Federico, GDi. Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Careerof Judges and Prosecutors in Europe: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. Editrice Lo Scarabeo, Bologna, 2005, str. 69-126.
T. Edinger: Die Justiz muss eine Stimme bekommen. Deutsche Richtrzeitung, 2003, str. 188.
BverfG. Jör. (n.F.) Thoma 6, 1957. str.. 161.
Udo Hochschild: Von den Möglichkeiten der deutschen Exekutiven zur Beeinflussung der Rechtsprechung. Zeitshcrift für Rechtspolitik 2011. str. 65.
Werner Schmidt-Hieber – Ekkehard Kiesswetter: Parteigeist und politischer Geist in der Justiz. NJW, 1992, str. 1790-1794.
Peter Macke: Die Dritte Gewalt als Beute der Exekutive. Deutsche Richter Zeitung. 1999, str. 481.
Thomas Schulte-Kellinghaus: Die begrenzte Macht der Dritten Gewalt- Zur Notwendigkeit der Selbstverwaltung der Gerichte. Zeitshrift für Rechtspolitik, 2008, str. 205.
C. Guarnieri – P. Pederzoli: The Power of Judges . A Comparative Stufy of Courts and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002. str. 32.
Herbert Jacob: Courts and Politics inthe United States. In: Herbert Jacob – Erhard Blankenburg – Herbert M. Kritzer – Doris Marie Provine – Joseph Sanders op. cit. str. 16-81.
Jeffrey A. Segal – Albert D. Cover:.Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review, 1989. str. 557.; Theodore W. Ruger – Pauline T. Kim – Andrew D. Martin – Kevin M. Quinn: The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review, 2004. str. 1150.
R. Carp – R. Stidham: Judicial Process in America. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.,1998. str. 408.
Gregory C. Sisk – Michael Heise – Andrew P. Morris: Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning. New York University Law Review, 1998. str. 1377.
Glenn R. Winters: Selection of Judges. A Historical Introduction. Texas Law Review, 1965. str. 1081-1085.
Craig F. Emmert – Henry R. Glick: The Selection of State Supreme Court Justices. American Politics Quarterly, 1988, 16. str. 445-465.
Henry R. Glick – Craig F. Emmert: Selection Systems and Judicial Characteristics: The Recruitment of State Supreme Court Judges. Judicature, 1987, 70. str. 228-235.
Kelly Shackelford – Justin Butterfield: The Light of Accountability: Why Partisan Elections are the Best Method of Judicial Selection. In: The Advocate, Texas, 2010. str. 73.
Bert Brandenburg: Big Money and Impartial Justice: Can they Live Together? Arizona Law Review, 2010. 52. str. 207-217.
Michael S. Kang –Joanna M. Shepherd: The Partisan Price of Justice: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions.. New York University Law Review, 2011. str. 70-130.
Larry T. Aspin – William K. Hall: Retention Elections and Judicial Behavior. Judicature, 1994. str. 306-312.
Aman McLeod: If at First You Don’t Succeed: A Critical Evaluation of Judicial Selection Reform Efforts. 107 W. VA. L. REV., 2005. str. 499.
Todd Edwards: Judicial Election in Southern States. In: Regional Resource, The Council of State Governments. Atlanta, 2004. str. 4.
Roscoe Pound: The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice. Journal of American Judicial Studies, 1937. str. 178-186.
Brian Fitzpatrick: On the Merits of Merit Selection. The advocate, Texas, Winter, 2010.
Rachel Paine Caufield: What Makes Merit Selection Different? Roger Williams U.L. Rev., Fall, 2010. str. 765.
Steven Zeidman: To Elect or Not to Elect: Case Study of Judicial Selection in New York City 1977-2002. Michigan Journal of Law, 2004. str. 791-810.
Laura Denvir Stith – Jeremy Root: The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan: The Least Political Method of Selecting High Quality Judges. Montana Law Review, 2009. str. 711.
V. Moreno-Catena – J. Pintos-Ager – H. Soleto-Munoz: Espagne/Spain In: Fabri et al. (ured.), str. 207.
Attila Badó: Az igazságszolgáltató hatalom alkotmányos helyzetének és egyes alapelveinek összehasonlító vizsgálata. In: Tóth Judit – Legény Krisztián. (szerk.) Összehasonlító alkotmányjog, Complex, Budapest, 2006. str. 163-210.
Doris Marie Provine: Courts in the Political Process in France. In: Herbert Jacob – Erhard Blankenburg – Herbert M. Kritzer –Doris Marie Provine – Joseph Sanders op. cit. str. 177-249.
R. Depré – J. Plessers: Belgique In: Fabri et al (ured.), str. 135-159.
A. Martin: Le Conseil supérieur de la magistrature et l’indépendance des juges. Revue du droit public, mai-juin, 1997, 3. str. 741-78.
J. Gicquel: J. L’évolution du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature In: Renoux T.S. (ured.), str. 201-208.
D. M. Provine: Courts in the political Process in France. In: H. Jacob – E. Blankenburg – H. M. Kritzer (ured.): Courts, Law and Politics in Comparative Perspective, Yale University Press, 1996. str. 177-248.
R. Perrot: Institutions judiciaires. Montchrestien, Domat Droit privé, 2008. str. 536.
Theodore W. Ruger – Pauline T. Kim – Andrew D. Martin – Kevin M. Quinn: The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review, 2004. str. 1150.