Contextual Analysis of Judicial Governance in Slovenia

Author:

Avbelj Matej

Abstract

AbstractWhat is a real character of judicial (self)-government in Slovenia? Does it live up to the standards established in a well-ordered society, based on the established rule of law and consolidated democracy? This certainly is an impression that an external critical, but uniformed, observer develops when he or she approaches the legal regulation of judicial (self)-government in Slovenia. This also is an impression that has been perpetuated in academic and professional circles prior and after the enlargement of the EU. The article dispels this myth. It does so by providing a comprehensive assessment of all the bodies and processes involved in the judicial (self)-government in Slovenia. Contrary to the prevalent formalistic legal approach, which dominates the legal scholarship concerned with judicial governance and the courts more generally, the article relies on a socio-legal methodological approach. It therefore situates the system of judicial self-government in the Slovenian socio-political context in order to provide an insight into how the judicial self-government really works and to what an extent it falls short of the normative ideals prescribed by the Slovenian positive law.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law

Reference133 articles.

1. Constitutional Court Decision U-I-69/92 of 10 December 1992, para. 8 noting that Slovenia in Yugoslavia was a state “whose authorities had after the end of the war carried out mass executions of former military and current political opponents, legally unacceptable trials followed by death penalties, illegal seizure of property, obstruction and liquidation of political parties in violation of its own legal system etc., thus making the injured parties afraid, with good reason, for their lives in case of residing in such a country.”

2. OJ RS 23/17.

3. This was the case of Mr Masleša prior to and some time after his appointment as a President of the Supreme Court.

4. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court Personnel Council.

5. Vavken, supra note 40, at 101.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3