Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Iuris Dictio

Miscelánea

Núm. 18 (2016)

Transparency and Openness of Courts in the 21st Century. An Issue Worth Researching on

DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v18i18.785
Submitted
December 15, 2016
Published
2016-12-01

Abstract

At first sight, the transparency and openness of the judicial system does not seem to be a particularly current topic. The most important international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights guarantee due process (right to a fair trial), including the element of the right to a public trial. In addition, trials have been public throughout previous centuries. As a consequence, the question may be raised whether it is really necessary to deal with the transparency and openness of courts in scientific research. In my paper, I attempt to justify this statement. First, I present the new levels and new elements of the transparency and openness of courts opposite the publicness of the trial. Next, I collect the new arguments for and against the transparency and openness of courts, which arose in the 20th and 21st century. Finally, I enlist some examples where transparency and openness mean a challenge for the courts, legislature, media or general public.

viewed = 495 times

References

  1. Barak, A. (2006). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  2. Engelmann, Klaus (1977). Prozeßgrundsätze im Verfassungsprozeßrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  3. Frost, A. (2013). Judicial Ethics and Supreme Court Exceptionalism. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 26 (3), 443-480.
  4. Fung, K. (2012). Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: CNN, Fox News Wrong On Individual Mandate. The Huffington Post, June 28.
  5. Galanter, M. (2004). fte Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1 (3), 459-570.
  6. Herrero, A. y López, G. (2010). Access to Information and Transparency in the Judiciary. Buenos Aires: Asociación por los Derechos Civiles.
  7. Liptak, A. (2007). Web Sites Listing Informants Concern Justice Dept., New York Times, May 22.
  8. Lithwick, D. (2006). Listen Up: fte Supreme Court"™s hot/cold audio-casting policy. Slate. com, November 28.
  9. Marder, N. S. (2009). From "Practical Obscurity" to Web Disclosure: A New Understanding of Public Information. Syracuse Law Review, 59 (3), 441-458.
  10. Miller, M. C. (2015). Judicial Politics in the United States. Boulder: Westview Press.
  11. Resnik, J.; Curtis, D. (2010). Re-presenting Justice: Visual Narratives of Judgment and the Invention of Democratic Courts. Yale Journal of Law & Humanities, 24 (1), 139-183.
  12. Resnik, J. (2006). Uncovering, Disclosing, and Discovering how the Public Dimensions of Court-Based Processes are at Risk. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 81 (2), 521-570
  13. Sellers, D. A. (2014). As Today"™s Tony Lewises Disappear, Courts Fill Void. Missouri Law Review, 79(7), 1021-1037.
  14. Strickler, V. J. (2014). The Supreme Court and the New Media Technologies. In R. Davis (ed.). Covering the United States Supreme Court in the Digital Age (pp. 397- 411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Westley, B. (2010). Access to Plea Agreements. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Summer: 1-5.
  16. Youm, K. H. (2012). Cameras in the Courtroom in the Twenty-First Century: the U.S. Supre- me Court Learning From Abroad? BYU Law Review, 2012 (6), 1989-2032.
  17. International Conventions and Judicial Procedures:
  18. Administrative Office of the United States Courts (2011). A Journalist"™s Guide to the Federal Courts.
  19. The US Supreme Court (2015). "Requirements and Procedures for Issuing Supreme Court Press Credentials".
  21. United States Courts (2014). Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
  22. UN Assembly (1966). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by General Assembly. Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.