State and Federal Court systems in the US have undergone significant change over the past fifty years where a process of administrative innovation and improvement has taken place. In other countries this change has been more recent and they have faced similar problems. This Institute for Court Management paper focuses on court administration as a component of judicial branch reform in the US and other countries.
Previously in the US, the courts depended on the executive branch for administrative support. However, this was transferred to the judicial branch in both the federal and state court systems. New planning and policy bodies were created within the judicial branch, and court administration emerged as a discrete profession. Judicial training and court administration organisations were set up and core competencies were identified. Localism, corruption, mediocrity and anarchy were no longer characteristics of the judicial system. International reform efforts happened much later than in the US and the pressure to reform came from a number of sources including the wish to be attractive to investors.
The transparent, effective management of court processes is a necessary part of the administration of justice. Archaic, complex systems that are not transparent are havens for corrupt practices. Modernised, transparent processes with decreased numbers of procedural steps have been shown to reduce problems. Key findings are that:
- USAID has been influential in judicial sector reform although there is frequent criticism that their programmes reflect ideas about democracy and institutions that are specific to America and do not necessarily apply to other countries.
- Foreign investment opportunities have also heightened interest in judicial reform and the World Bank has been the leading architect of international legal and judicial reform efforts in this area.
- The focus is now on judicial reform as one of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring the protection of individual human rights against government abuse.
- There are a wide variety of administrative reforms and training needs that have been identified that range from reforming archaic practices to case management.
- Few training programmes were found to meet training needs and many are not flexible enough to use in other legal systems.
- There are no comprehensive, flexible programmes able to deliver necessary training in the international area. In countries where it is offered, they are frequently minimal and sporadic.
Key recommendations are that:
- The creation of a flexible, adaptable court administration training programme suitable for many legal systems would be useful.
- Education for development and faculty development should be used. Flexible curricula should centre around general core competencies and value-based standards.
- Curricula should be developed with counterparts in recipient countries and international trainers should be orientated to the cultural norms, legal traditions and current political landscapes of the countries in which they train.
- A needs assessment should be administered prior to designing and implementing international programmes and a more comprehensive, programmatic approach is required.
- Principles of education development, which emphasise the diversity of learners and the development of generalised abilities should be taken into consideration when designing courses.
- Projects need to focus on creating and transmitting knowledge and capacity.
- Consideration should be given in the initial design stages of any international programme to develop core strategy for training local counterparts.
