Browse by title
David Cheong and Franz Christian Ebert
Marlese von Broembsen and Shane Godfrey
Shelley Marshall and Colin Fenwick
Christian Wolf and Fabienne Klass
This chapter provides an overview of judicial regulation in Germany. It demonstrates the impact of judges’ changing roles on the legal system of the country. The chapter starts with a historical summary of German judicial regulation, then outlines the appointment and promotion processes for judges as well as the present ethical and legal framework that constrains judges’ behaviour. The authors evaluate these frameworks and make proposals to improve judicial regulation.
This chapter explores the changing regulatory space occupied by judges in England and Wales. A highly informal, closed and secretive regime characterized by relatively unfettered ministerial discretion has been replaced by a more formal, open and inclusive regulatory space in which the essential dynamic is increasing judicial self-governance and a corresponding reduction in ministerial involvement. No longer is the running of the judicial system in the Lord Chancellor’s hands alone, but rather multiple actors have a role in the design, execution and review of judicial policy. The chapter considers the causes and consequences of this new collaborative regulatory space.
Jaclyn L Neo and Helena Whalen-Bridge
Judicial codes can serve multiple objectives. This chapter examines the use and disuse of judicial codes of conduct by investigating the case of Malaysia. Malaysia first prescribed a Judges’ Code of Ethics in 1994, and then replaced it in 2009 with a more extensive code which established a procedure for complaints and investigation beyond the previous procedure. On the face of it, these codes may be conceptualized as rules for self-regulation, ensuring that judges comprehend their duties and act ethically. Furthermore, they appear to also serve the aim of asserting the judiciary’s independence against the other branches of government. However, because the codes were passed by Parliament in the wake of executive incursions and charges of corruption, there is concern that they are in fact a way for the executive, through the legislature, to control judicial conduct, with a deleterious effect on judicial independence.