Judicial Institutions in a Post-Conflict Society: Gaining Legitimacy through a Holistic Reform

This paper focuses on how judiciaries in post-conflict societies can gain legitimacy through reformation. Legitimacy plays a pivotal role in shaping people’s behavior to submit to the law and verifies the rightfulness of an organ for taking binding decisions. Among various dynamics, judicial independence, access to justice and behavioral changes of the judicial officials broadly contribute to legitimation of judiciary in general, and the courts in particular. Increasing independence of judiciary through reform limits, inter alia, government interference in judicial issues and protects basic rights of the citizens. Judicial independence does not only matter in institutional terms, individual independence also influences the impartiality and integrity of judges, which can be increased through education and better administration of justice. Finally, access to justice as an intertwined concept both at the legal and moral spectrum of judicial reform avails justice to the citizens and increases the level of public trust and confidence. Efficient legal decisions on fostering such elements through holistic reform create a rule of law atmosphere. Citizens neither accept an illegitimate judiciary nor do they trust its decisions. Lack of such tolerance and confidence deters the rule of law and thus, undermines the democratic development of a society.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Partisanship: Support for the President and Solicitor General

This paper analyzes the extent to which the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cast votes that support the positions of the president, or more generally the Executive Branch. Can presidents count on such deference from those justices they nominate or those whom are nominated by other presidents of the same party? Or, do the justices demonstrate judicial independence and impartiality such that they are not so predisposed to vote in favor of arguments of their nominating president-s party? The results suggest that while in general the justices do not exhibit any marked tendency to partisan support of presidents, more recent and conservative Supreme Court justices are significantly more likely to support Republican presidents.