LIST OF PANELS

This panel seeks to go beyond the conventional analytic framework for the regulation of judges which relies on the tension between independence and accountability. Drawing on contemporary regulation and governance theory, the panel explores the possibility of analyzing the regulation of judges through a four faced prism: values, processes, resources and outcomes. Values generates a focus on independence; impartiality; accountability; representativeness; transparency; and efficiency. Processes generates a focus on institutional relations (e.g. constitutional, conventional or statutory) with the other state institutions (e.g. executive, legislature, Crown, religious authorities, etc.); appointments processes; continuing education and training; appellate mechanisms; ethical assistance programs and networks; complaints and discipline processes; relations and engagement with the public; relations with media; judicial immunity/liability; and evaluation of judges. Resources generates a focus on court budgets; numbers of judges, part time and full time, per capita; salaries and pensions of judges; physical infrastructure; support staff; technological needs/supports; and security. Outcomes generates a focus on public satisfaction with, and confidence in, the judiciary. This panel welcomes participants from any jurisdiction or any legal family who are intrigued by this novel conceptual framework.

Traditionally, the dominant paradigm for analyzing how judges are regulated is to draw on a continuum between independence accountability. While this paradigm has facilitated many deep and rich analyses it tends to be too unidimensional. Drawing on contemporary regulation and governance theory, this project offers an alternative paradigm that allows for more comprehensive of analyses of judicial regulation. Through the introduction of a meta-level regulatory pyramid, we suggest that we can better understand judicial regulation through a discussion of values, processes, resources and outcomes:  When we focus on Values, we can then discuss (1) Independence; (2) Impartiality; (3) Accountability; (4) Representativeness; (5) Transparency; (6) Efficiency. When we focus on Processes we can discuss   (1) Institutional relations (e.g. constitutional, conventional or statutory) with the other state institutions (e.g. executive, legislature, Crown, religious authorities, etc.); (2) Appointments processes; (3) Continuing education and training; (4) Appellate mechanisms; (5) Ethical assistance programs and networks; (6) Complaints and discipline processes; (7) Relations and engagement with the public; (8) Relations with media; (9) Judicial immunity/liability; and (10) Evaluation of judges.   When we focus on Resources, we can discuss   (1) Court budgets; (2) Numbers of judges, part time and full time, per capita; (3) Salaries and pensions of judges; (4) Physical Infrastructure; (5) Support Staff; (6) Technological needs/supports; (7) Security.   And finally when we focus on Outcomes we can focus on public satisfaction with, and confidence in, the judiciary. This project involves scholars from more than twenty jurisdictions to provide a comparative study of how judges are regulated across a variety of legal traditions. Several of these scholars plan to attend the Conference, including: