Titlebook: How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning; Mátyás Bencze,Gar Yein Ng Book 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Spring

車床

Mátyás Bencze,Gar Yein NgProvides theoretical and empirical foundations for debate on how a legal judgment might be measured.Incorporates the user’s (citizen‘s) perspective into the scholarly analysis of court judgments.Inclu

四溢

Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justicehttp://image.papertrans.cn/h/image/428797.jpg

ventilate

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97316-6Quality of Judicial Reasoning in Finland; Quality of Judicial Reasoning in England and Wales; Quality

Coeval

Measuring the Unmeasurable?,tely the legitimacy of the judiciary and courts. At the same time, a politically and socially determined activity such as judicial reasoning will always resist evaluation based on numbers or other exact terms. There will always be special circumstances that must be considered in the evaluation of a

小說

盡忠

How to Measure? An Essay on the Social Context of Measuring Quality,re a combination of relevant skills and attitudes which are present in argumentation and communication. Behind the measurement of the quality of judicial work there lies the theoretical question of justice and a sociological task. As for the theoretical question, one of the most complicated problems

FOLD

Judicial Reasoning from the Perspective of Behavioural Law and Economics,. The model is supposed to include the achievements of contemporary cognitive psychology, cognitive sciences and behavioural law and economics. The growth of judicial activism and the empowerment of courts demonstrates a clear need for revision of present current models of adjudication. The fact tha

嘲笑

Quality of Justice and Lay Participation in the Light of Scientific Studies, in dispensing justice and subjecting them to critical analysis. A considerable number of arguments show a strong correlation with the image of quality and democratic justice. However, in the case of lay judiciary forms, the relationship between the goals set forth in arguments and their enforcement

共同確定為確

,Obstacles and Opportunities—Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning,ment when it comes to the quality of judicial motivation? These are the questions I address in this chapter. In the first part I justify the importance of quality assurance of judicial reasoning itself, independently from the other elements of adjudication. I then recap the possible objections to a

Kindle

Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales,theory—judges should not forget that giving reasons is a basis for their own legitimacy and accountability. These standards appear to be entirely derived from legal principles and practices. This chapter will address the question of whether there are criticisms on the quality of judicial reasoning a