The power knocks at the courts' back door: Two waves of postcommunist judicial reforms

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 816-840

  Piana, Daniela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Courts; European enlargement; Judicial policies; Postcommunism; Rule of law

Indexed keywords

EID: 65449180394     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414009333049     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Ajani, G. (1996). Il modello post socialista [The post-socialist model]. Torino, Italy: Giappichelli.
2. Belton, R.K. (2005). Competing definitions of rule of law: Implications for practitioners. Carnegie Papers, 55, 1-38.
3. Boulanger, C. (2003, June). Beyond significative relationships, tolerance intervals and triadic dispute resolution: Constructing a comparative theory of judicial review in post-communist countries. Paper presented at the Law & Society Association, Annual Conference, Pittsburgh.
4. Burbank, S.B., & Friedman, B. (2002). Reconsidering judicial independence. In S. Burbank & B. Friedman (Eds.), Judicial independence at the cross road. An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 9-42). London: Sage.
5. Burchill, R. (2005). The European Union, the international law and the promotion and protection of democracy. Oxford, UK: Hart.
6. Carothers, T. (1999). Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
7. Ccje. (2001). Independence of the judiciary. Strasbourg, France: Office of Publications.
8. Ccje. (2007 a). Council for Judiciary in a service for a society. Strasbourg, France: Office of Publications.
9. Ccje. (2007 b). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Czech Republic. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default- en.asp
10. Ccje. (2007 c). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE Opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Hungary. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default- en.asp
11. Ccje. (2007 d). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE Opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Poland. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default- en.asp
12. Cepej. (2006 a). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Czech Republic. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/ legalcooperation/cepej/
13. Cepej. (2006 b). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Hungary. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/ legalcooperation/cepej/
14. Cepej. (2006 c). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Poland. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/ legalcooperation/cepej/
15. Council of Europe. (2005). Construire ensemble l'Europe du droit [Building Together a European Rule of Law]. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Official Publishing.
16. David, R. (2003). Lustration laws in action: The motives and evaluation of lustration policy in the Czech Republic and Poland (1989-2001). Law and Inquiry, 3, 387-439. (Pubitemid 37340491)
17. Di Federico, G. (2005). Recruitment, professional evaluation career of judges and prosecutors in Europe. Bologna, Italy: Lo Scarabeo.
18. Dimitrov, R.S. (2003). Knowledge, power, and interests in environmental regime formation. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 123-150. (Pubitemid 36409436)
19. Dimitrova, A. (2002). Enlargement, institutional-building and the EU's administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 25, 171-190. (Pubitemid 35348456)
20. Elster, J. (1996). The roundtable talks and the breakdown of communism. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
21. Emmert, F. (2000). Administration and court reform in Central and Eastern Europe. European Law Journal, 9, 288-315.
22. European Commission. (1997 a). Regular report on Czech Republic's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
23. European Commission. (1997 b). Regular report on Poland's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
24. European Commission. (1997 c). Report on PHARE HU97/IB-JH-02. Brussels: Author.
25. European Commission. (1998 a). Regular report on Czech Republic's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
26. European Commission. (1998 b). Twinning an instrument of institutional building. Brussels: Author.
27. European Commission. (1998 c). Regular Report on Hungary's Process of Accession. Brussels: Author.
28. European Commission (1998 d). Regular Report on Poland's Process of Accession. Brussels: Author.
29. European Commission. (1999 a). Regular report on Czech Republic's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
30. European Commission. (1999 b). Regular report on Hungary's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
31. European Commission. (1999 c). Regular report on Poland's process of accession. Brussels: Author.
32. European Commission. (2002). Report on PHARE CZ 9810-03-01. Brussels: Author.
33. Fabri, M. (2005). Policies to enhance the quality of justice in Europe. In M. Fabri, J.-P. Jean, P. Langbroek, & H. Pauliat (Eds.), L'administration de la Justice en Europe. L'valuation de sa qualit (pp. 68-83). Paris: LGDJ-Montchrestien-Gualino.
34. Frankowski, S. (2005). Introduction to Polish law. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
35. Gargarella, R., & Skaar, E. (2004). (Eds.). Democratization and the judiciary. The accountability function of courts in new democracies. London: Frank Cass.
36. Grabbe, H. (2001). How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 1013-1031. (Pubitemid 33610810)
37. Guarnieri, C., & Magalhles, P.C. (2006). Democratic consolidation, judicial reform and the judicialisation of politics in Southern Europe. In R. Gunther, N. Diamandouros, & D. Sotiropoulos (Eds.), Democracy and the state in the New Southern Europe (pp. 138-196). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38. Guarnieri, C., & Pederzoli, P. (2002). The power of judge: A study of courts and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39. Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.
40. Ishiyama Smithey, S., & Ishiyama, J. (2000). Judicious choices: Designing courts in postcommunist politics. Communist and Post Communist Studies, 33, 163-182. (Pubitemid 30264166)
41. Langbroek, P. (2005). Quality management concerning judges, judgements and courts services. In M. Fabri, J.-P. Jean, P. Langbroek, & H. Pauliat (Eds.), L'administration de la Justice en Europe. L'valuation de sa qualit (pp. 49-67). Paris: LGDJ-Montchrestien-Gualino.
42. Larkins, C. (1996). Judicial independence and democratization. A theoretical and conceptual analysis. American Journal of Comparative Law, 44, 605-630. (Pubitemid 127037404)
43. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and post communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Magalhles, P. (1999). The politics of judicial reform in Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 32, 43-62.
45. Maitrepierre, E. (2002). Programme Phare: La formation des magistrats [The Phare programme: Judicial training] (La Documentation franaise, No. 1028). Paris: La Documentation Franaise.
46. Manko, R. (2005). The culture of private law in Central Europe after enlargement: A Polish perspective. European Law Journal, 11, 527-548.
47. Morlino, L., & Fargion, V. (2006). Europeanisation and territorial representation in Italy. West European Politics, 29, 757-783. (Pubitemid 44237441)
48. Morlino, L., & Magen, A. (2008). International Actors, Democratization and the Rule of Law: Anchoring Democracy? London: Routledge.
49. Ohlinger, T. (2003). The genesis of the Austrian model of constitutional review of legislation. Ratio Juris, 16, 206-222.
50. Open Society Institute. (2001 a). Judicial independence. Czech Republic. Country report. Budapest: Author.
51. Open Society Institute. (2001 b). Judicial independence. Hungary. Country report. Budapest: Author.
52. Open Society Institute. (2001 c). Judicial independence. Poland. Country Report. Budapest: Author.
53. Open Society Institute. (2002 a). Judicial capacity. Czech Republic. Country report. Budapest: Author.
54. Open Society Institute. (2002 b). Judicial capacity. Hungary. Country report. Budapest: Author.
55. Open Society Institute. (2002 c). Judicial capacity. Poland. Country report. Budapest: Author.
56. Orkeny, A., & Sheppele, K.L. (1999). Rules of law: The complexity of legality in Hungary. In M. Krygier & A. Czarnota (Eds.), The rule of law after communism (pp. 55-76). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot.
57. Osiatynsky, V. (1986). Roundtable in Poland. In J. Elster (Ed.), Roundtables talks and the breakdown of communism (pp. 21-68). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
58. Ottaway, M., & Carothers T. (Eds). (2000). Funding virtue: Aid and democracy promotion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
59. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2003). Exporting Europeanisation: Exporting Europeanisation to the wider Europe: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in the candidate countries and beyond. Journal of South East European and Black Sea Studies, 3 (2). 1-22.
60. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2004). The domestic mediation of Europeanisation: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in Romania. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 619-639. (Pubitemid 39216437)
61. Piana, D. (2007). Unpacking policy transfer, discover actor. French Politics, 3, 275-297.
62. Pogany, I. (1993). Constitutional reform in Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary's transition to democracy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 42, 332-355.
63. Pokol, B. (2005, June). Judicial power and democratization in Eastern Europe. Paper presented at the conference Europeanization and Democratization, Florence.
64. Potocki, A. (2006, December). Judicial networks in Europe. Paper presented at the conference Transnational Judicial Dialogue: Strengthening Networks and Mechanisms for Judicial Consultation and Cooperation, Cambridge, MA.
65. Priban, J. (2002). Judicial power vs democratic representation. In W. Sadurski (Ed.), Constitutional justice East and West (pp. 373-394). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
66. Priban, J. (2007). Legal symbolism: On law, time and European identity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
67. Rebuffa, G. (1990). Costituzioni e costituzionalismi. Torino, Italy: Giappichelli.
68. Russell, P., & O' Brien, D. (2001). Judicial independence in new democracy: A critical perspective from around the world. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
69. Sadurski, W. (2004). Accession's democracy dividend: The impact of the EU enlargement upon democracy in the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe. European Law Review, 10, 371-401.
70. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policies, 11, 669-687. (Pubitemid 39203284)
71. Schwartz, H. (2000). The struggle for constitutional justice in post-communist Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Selznick, P. (1999). Legal cultures and the rule of law. In M. Krygier & A. Czarnota (Eds.), The rule of law after communism (pp. 21-38). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot.
73. Solyom, L. (2003). The role of constitutional courts in the transition to democracy. International Sociology, 18, 133-161.
74. Toharia, J.J. (1975). Judicial independence in an authoritarian regime: The case of contemporary Spain. Law and Society Review, 9, 475-496.
75. Verheijen, T. (1999). Civil service systems in Central and Eastern Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.