Codification processes in The Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 16th century show a rapid transformation of judicial awareness. In this case, the shift of the judicial awareness of the governing elite was caused by few conditions that distinguished this sociopolitical stratum from the estate of nobles. First, members of the governing elite were judges and consumers of the judicial system, while the rest of the nobility were just consumers; this caused a formation of a binary relation with the law. Second, the higher political and social-economical position provided advantages in a judicial process and supported a hierarchical approach to the courts of law, which could cause judicial nihilism in the perception of law and justice. Third, members of the governing elite represented different political groups, had different political, social and economic potential, had become members of this group through different means; these and other individual experiences had eclecticized the legal awareness. These conditions generated a symbiosis of archaic and new judicial ideas, which formed a qualitatively new perception of law, justice and the judicial system.
Codification processes in The Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 16th century show a rapid transformation of judicial awareness. In this case, the shift of the judicial awareness of the governing elite was caused by few conditions that distinguished this sociopolitical stratum from the estate of nobles. First, members of the governing elite were judges and consumers of the judicial system, while the rest of the nobility were just consumers; this caused a formation of a binary relation with the law. Second, the higher political and social-economical position provided advantages in a judicial process and supported a hierarchical approach to the courts of law, which could cause judicial nihilism in the perception of law and justice. Third, members of the governing elite represented different political groups, had different political, social and economic potential, had become members of this group through different means; these and other individual experiences had eclecticized the legal awareness. These conditions generated a symbiosis of archaic and new judicial ideas, which formed a qualitatively new perception of law, justice and the judicial system.
Codification processes in The Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 16th century show a rapid transformation of judicial awareness. In this case, the shift of the judicial awareness of the governing elite was caused by few conditions that distinguished this sociopolitical stratum from the estate of nobles. First, members of the governing elite were judges and consumers of the judicial system, while the rest of the nobility were just consumers; this caused a formation of a binary relation with the law. Second, the higher political and social-economical position provided advantages in a judicial process and supported a hierarchical approach to the courts of law, which could cause judicial nihilism in the perception of law and justice. Third, members of the governing elite represented different political groups, had different political, social and economic potential, had become members of this group through different means; these and other individual experiences had eclecticized the legal awareness. These conditions generated a symbiosis of archaic and new judicial ideas, which formed a qualitatively new perception of law, justice and the judicial system.
Codification processes in The Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 16th century show a rapid transformation of judicial awareness. In this case, the shift of the judicial awareness of the governing elite was caused by few conditions that distinguished this sociopolitical stratum from the estate of nobles. First, members of the governing elite were judges and consumers of the judicial system, while the rest of the nobility were just consumers; this caused a formation of a binary relation with the law. Second, the higher political and social-economical position provided advantages in a judicial process and supported a hierarchical approach to the courts of law, which could cause judicial nihilism in the perception of law and justice. Third, members of the governing elite represented different political groups, had different political, social and economic potential, had become members of this group through different means; these and other individual experiences had eclecticized the legal awareness. These conditions generated a symbiosis of archaic and new judicial ideas, which formed a qualitatively new perception of law, justice and the judicial system.
The article presents the variety and activity characteristics of subjects involved in evaluating the professional ethics of judges, in the context of society welfare development. The issues of professional ethics of judges are highlighted through a wide range of subjects evaluating these questions. Whereas the evaluation object – knowledge of ethics, personal characteristics, behavior, motivation, and behavioral compliance with ethical standards – is changing and expanding with regard to the features of procedures (examinations, taking of the examinations, continuous performance evaluation, application of disciplinary liability etc.). The analysis shows that there is a connection between globalization and individualization in solving the ethical issues of judges, ethical procedures are standardized and the prestige of judicial profession is actively fostered. The analysis of legislature documents showed that the issues of professional ethics of judges are relevant in all stages of judge's career. The article typologically distinguishes, depending on the evaluation object and procedures, the four main groups of assessors: 1) the public; 2) legal community and non-governmental organizations as evaluators of prestige of the profession of judge, activity of judges and behavior of judges; 3) the Commisions: the Examination Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office and the Selection Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office, as well as the Permanent Commission for the Assessment of Activities of Judges such as: personal characteristics, behavior and motivation; 4) judicial self-government – the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission, Judicial Court of Honour as well as the Supreme Court of Lithuania – as the institutions which have final word in dealing with disciplinary matters of judges. Participation of these subjects in the evaluation of different stages of judicial ethics ensures the core of the professional value of judges' activities. The requirements for profession of judge in professional ethics are consistently consolidated in all processes and correlate with each other. The evaluation of society (as the evaluator of professional ethics of judge, in the context of the confidence in courts) is informal and subjective. For detailed and reasoned evaluation the complex instruments are necessary – the opinions which are consolidated, based on several criteria and derived from different sources, concerning the court activities and behavior of the judge. The evaluation of legal community can become the formal criteria of professional ethics of judge. Non-governmental organizations could represent judges at the Judicial Court of Honour, furthermore they could actively participate in evaluating issues of professional ethics. Whereas in the complex evaluation of commissions activities when evaluating the pretender (judge) we must take into account not only the quantitative activity indicators – number of cases, the nature of work, length of service, but also qualitative indicators – personal characteristics, behavior, motivation. The activity results of institutions solving the issues concerning the disciplinary responsibility of judges indicate the effectiveness of applied disciplinary measures, conditioned by training, education and self-development issues. The participation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in the system of evaluating professional ethics of judges is under doubt due to fact that this function is not naturally attributed to the court per se. Therefore, it is proposed to eliminate the Supreme Court from the circle of bodies competent to evaluate professional ethics of judges. Furthermore, it is advised that Judge Ethics and Disciplinary Commission might impose the disciplinary sanctions and the decisions made by Judge Ethics and Disciplinary Commission if appealed were brought for review to the Judicial Court of Honour.
The article presents the variety and activity characteristics of subjects involved in evaluating the professional ethics of judges, in the context of society welfare development. The issues of professional ethics of judges are highlighted through a wide range of subjects evaluating these questions. Whereas the evaluation object – knowledge of ethics, personal characteristics, behavior, motivation, and behavioral compliance with ethical standards – is changing and expanding with regard to the features of procedures (examinations, taking of the examinations, continuous performance evaluation, application of disciplinary liability etc.). The analysis shows that there is a connection between globalization and individualization in solving the ethical issues of judges, ethical procedures are standardized and the prestige of judicial profession is actively fostered. The analysis of legislature documents showed that the issues of professional ethics of judges are relevant in all stages of judge's career. The article typologically distinguishes, depending on the evaluation object and procedures, the four main groups of assessors: 1) the public; 2) legal community and non-governmental organizations as evaluators of prestige of the profession of judge, activity of judges and behavior of judges; 3) the Commisions: the Examination Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office and the Selection Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office, as well as the Permanent Commission for the Assessment of Activities of Judges such as: personal characteristics, behavior and motivation; 4) judicial self-government – the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission, Judicial Court of Honour as well as the Supreme Court of Lithuania – as the institutions which have final word in dealing with disciplinary matters of judges. Participation of these subjects in the evaluation of different stages of judicial ethics ensures the core of the professional value of judges' activities. The requirements for profession of judge in professional ethics are consistently consolidated in all processes and correlate with each other. The evaluation of society (as the evaluator of professional ethics of judge, in the context of the confidence in courts) is informal and subjective. For detailed and reasoned evaluation the complex instruments are necessary – the opinions which are consolidated, based on several criteria and derived from different sources, concerning the court activities and behavior of the judge. The evaluation of legal community can become the formal criteria of professional ethics of judge. Non-governmental organizations could represent judges at the Judicial Court of Honour, furthermore they could actively participate in evaluating issues of professional ethics. Whereas in the complex evaluation of commissions activities when evaluating the pretender (judge) we must take into account not only the quantitative activity indicators – number of cases, the nature of work, length of service, but also qualitative indicators – personal characteristics, behavior, motivation. The activity results of institutions solving the issues concerning the disciplinary responsibility of judges indicate the effectiveness of applied disciplinary measures, conditioned by training, education and self-development issues. The participation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in the system of evaluating professional ethics of judges is under doubt due to fact that this function is not naturally attributed to the court per se. Therefore, it is proposed to eliminate the Supreme Court from the circle of bodies competent to evaluate professional ethics of judges. Furthermore, it is advised that Judge Ethics and Disciplinary Commission might impose the disciplinary sanctions and the decisions made by Judge Ethics and Disciplinary Commission if appealed were brought for review to the Judicial Court of Honour.
The work of judges is dependent on generally accepted statements about the nature of their activity. The content of these statements is filled by judicial ideology, description of judicial activity which is constructed through a complex set of interactions between academic teachings, political rhetoric of the separation of powers, judicial self-perceptions, the views and expectations of the legal community, and the prevailing opinions of society as a whole on the proper role of the judiciary. All approaches to the judicial application of law, that is to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law, may be divided into three broad groups: 1) the Classical approach or the model of bound judicial decision-making; 2) the Realistic approach or the model of free judicial decision-making; and 3) the Socio-Economic approach or the model rational judicial decision-making. T he Classical approach denies that courts are the real authors of the law. It is proposed that judges are only the mouthpieces which give it expression. The model of bound judicial decision-making is opinion of the judicial process which explains the nature of the judicial activity as the application of enumerated preexisting standards, typically the rules contained in legislation. Legal theory based on this model strictly sets the line between the making of law, which is reserved exclusively to the legislature, and its application, which is assumed to be a process in which courts are supposed to apply that law mechanically to facts. The examples of such approach could be the role of the judges in the theories of legal positivism and legal normativism. Another group of theories, which could be described as the theories of the model of bound judicial decision-making, recognize that law is something that exists irrespective of the work of any person, institution or state. According to these theories law exists without respect of persons and just has to be found by a judge. The examples of these theories could be the doctrine of natural law, the Historical school of Jurisprudence and some sociological theories of law.
The work of judges is dependent on generally accepted statements about the nature of their activity. The content of these statements is filled by judicial ideology, description of judicial activity which is constructed through a complex set of interactions between academic teachings, political rhetoric of the separation of powers, judicial self-perceptions, the views and expectations of the legal community, and the prevailing opinions of society as a whole on the proper role of the judiciary. All approaches to the judicial application of law, that is to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law, may be divided into three broad groups: 1) the Classical approach or the model of bound judicial decision-making; 2) the Realistic approach or the model of free judicial decision-making; and 3) the Socio-Economic approach or the model rational judicial decision-making. T he Classical approach denies that courts are the real authors of the law. It is proposed that judges are only the mouthpieces which give it expression. The model of bound judicial decision-making is opinion of the judicial process which explains the nature of the judicial activity as the application of enumerated preexisting standards, typically the rules contained in legislation. Legal theory based on this model strictly sets the line between the making of law, which is reserved exclusively to the legislature, and its application, which is assumed to be a process in which courts are supposed to apply that law mechanically to facts. The examples of such approach could be the role of the judges in the theories of legal positivism and legal normativism. Another group of theories, which could be described as the theories of the model of bound judicial decision-making, recognize that law is something that exists irrespective of the work of any person, institution or state. According to these theories law exists without respect of persons and just has to be found by a judge. The examples of these theories could be the doctrine of natural law, the Historical school of Jurisprudence and some sociological theories of law.
The work of judges is dependent on generally accepted statements about the nature of their activity. The content of these statements is filled by judicial ideology, description of judicial activity which is constructed through a complex set of interactions between academic teachings, political rhetoric of the separation of powers, judicial self-perceptions, the views and expectations of the legal community, and the prevailing opinions of society as a whole on the proper role of the judiciary. All approaches to the judicial application of law, that is to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law, may be divided into three broad groups: 1) the Classical approach or the model of bound judicial decision-making; 2) the Realistic approach or the model of free judicial decision-making; and 3) the Socio-Economic approach or the model rational judicial decision-making. T he Classical approach denies that courts are the real authors of the law. It is proposed that judges are only the mouthpieces which give it expression. The model of bound judicial decision-making is opinion of the judicial process which explains the nature of the judicial activity as the application of enumerated preexisting standards, typically the rules contained in legislation. Legal theory based on this model strictly sets the line between the making of law, which is reserved exclusively to the legislature, and its application, which is assumed to be a process in which courts are supposed to apply that law mechanically to facts. The examples of such approach could be the role of the judges in the theories of legal positivism and legal normativism. Another group of theories, which could be described as the theories of the model of bound judicial decision-making, recognize that law is something that exists irrespective of the work of any person, institution or state. According to these theories law exists without respect of persons and just has to be found by a judge. The examples of these theories could be the doctrine of natural law, the Historical school of Jurisprudence and some sociological theories of law.
The work of judges is dependent on generally accepted statements about the nature of their activity. The content of these statements is filled by judicial ideology, description of judicial activity which is constructed through a complex set of interactions between academic teachings, political rhetoric of the separation of powers, judicial self-perceptions, the views and expectations of the legal community, and the prevailing opinions of society as a whole on the proper role of the judiciary. All approaches to the judicial application of law, that is to the role of judges in interpreting and applying law, may be divided into three broad groups: 1) the Classical approach or the model of bound judicial decision-making; 2) the Realistic approach or the model of free judicial decision-making; and 3) the Socio-Economic approach or the model rational judicial decision-making. T he Classical approach denies that courts are the real authors of the law. It is proposed that judges are only the mouthpieces which give it expression. The model of bound judicial decision-making is opinion of the judicial process which explains the nature of the judicial activity as the application of enumerated preexisting standards, typically the rules contained in legislation. Legal theory based on this model strictly sets the line between the making of law, which is reserved exclusively to the legislature, and its application, which is assumed to be a process in which courts are supposed to apply that law mechanically to facts. The examples of such approach could be the role of the judges in the theories of legal positivism and legal normativism. Another group of theories, which could be described as the theories of the model of bound judicial decision-making, recognize that law is something that exists irrespective of the work of any person, institution or state. According to these theories law exists without respect of persons and just has to be found by a judge. The examples of these theories could be the doctrine of natural law, the Historical school of Jurisprudence and some sociological theories of law.
This doctoral research is aimed at revealing, through theoretical and practical examples of the application of mandatory mediation models, the relationship between these models and the right to judicial protection and assessing whether restrictions, if established, are proportionate. To reach this aim the concept of mandatory mediation is analysed along with the effects the process of juridification of mediation had on it. The methods of implementation of mandatory mediation models introduced in different countries are also examined in the dissertation. Having established that the introduction of mandatory mediation limits direct access to judicial protection it is then analysed if these limitations are proportionate considering the main reasons for their introduction. Having established that mandatory mediation is usually introduced in pursuit of solving certain problems of the court system primarily related to overburdened court dockets and the costs of judicial proceedings, as well as tackling the limited prevalence of mediation, these two goals along with the practical effects of mandatory mediation models are analysed using the criteria of proper purpose, appropriate and necessary measures, and proportionality stricto sensu. The doctoral research can be used as a theoretical background for the introduction of mandatory mediation in civil disputes as well as in pursuit of making the already introduced mandatory mediation models more effective.
This doctoral research is aimed at revealing, through theoretical and practical examples of the application of mandatory mediation models, the relationship between these models and the right to judicial protection and assessing whether restrictions, if established, are proportionate. To reach this aim the concept of mandatory mediation is analysed along with the effects the process of juridification of mediation had on it. The methods of implementation of mandatory mediation models introduced in different countries are also examined in the dissertation. Having established that the introduction of mandatory mediation limits direct access to judicial protection it is then analysed if these limitations are proportionate considering the main reasons for their introduction. Having established that mandatory mediation is usually introduced in pursuit of solving certain problems of the court system primarily related to overburdened court dockets and the costs of judicial proceedings, as well as tackling the limited prevalence of mediation, these two goals along with the practical effects of mandatory mediation models are analysed using the criteria of proper purpose, appropriate and necessary measures, and proportionality stricto sensu. The doctoral research can be used as a theoretical background for introduction of mandatory mediation in civil disputes as well as in pursuit of making the already introduced mandatory mediation models more effective.
This doctoral research is aimed at revealing, through theoretical and practical examples of the application of mandatory mediation models, the relationship between these models and the right to judicial protection and assessing whether restrictions, if established, are proportionate. To reach this aim the concept of mandatory mediation is analysed along with the effects the process of juridification of mediation had on it. The methods of implementation of mandatory mediation models introduced in different countries are also examined in the dissertation. Having established that the introduction of mandatory mediation limits direct access to judicial protection it is then analysed if these limitations are proportionate considering the main reasons for their introduction. Having established that mandatory mediation is usually introduced in pursuit of solving certain problems of the court system primarily related to overburdened court dockets and the costs of judicial proceedings, as well as tackling the limited prevalence of mediation, these two goals along with the practical effects of mandatory mediation models are analysed using the criteria of proper purpose, appropriate and necessary measures, and proportionality stricto sensu. The doctoral research can be used as a theoretical background for introduction of mandatory mediation in civil disputes as well as in pursuit of making the already introduced mandatory mediation models more effective.
This doctoral research is aimed at revealing, through theoretical and practical examples of the application of mandatory mediation models, the relationship between these models and the right to judicial protection and assessing whether restrictions, if established, are proportionate. To reach this aim the concept of mandatory mediation is analysed along with the effects the process of juridification of mediation had on it. The methods of implementation of mandatory mediation models introduced in different countries are also examined in the dissertation. Having established that the introduction of mandatory mediation limits direct access to judicial protection it is then analysed if these limitations are proportionate considering the main reasons for their introduction. Having established that mandatory mediation is usually introduced in pursuit of solving certain problems of the court system primarily related to overburdened court dockets and the costs of judicial proceedings, as well as tackling the limited prevalence of mediation, these two goals along with the practical effects of mandatory mediation models are analysed using the criteria of proper purpose, appropriate and necessary measures, and proportionality stricto sensu. The doctoral research can be used as a theoretical background for the introduction of mandatory mediation in civil disputes as well as in pursuit of making the already introduced mandatory mediation models more effective.
This doctoral research is aimed at revealing, through theoretical and practical examples of the application of mandatory mediation models, the relationship between these models and the right to judicial protection and assessing whether restrictions, if established, are proportionate. To reach this aim the concept of mandatory mediation is analysed along with the effects the process of juridification of mediation had on it. The methods of implementation of mandatory mediation models introduced in different countries are also examined in the dissertation. Having established that the introduction of mandatory mediation limits direct access to judicial protection it is then analysed if these limitations are proportionate considering the main reasons for their introduction. Having established that mandatory mediation is usually introduced in pursuit of solving certain problems of the court system primarily related to overburdened court dockets and the costs of judicial proceedings, as well as tackling the limited prevalence of mediation, these two goals along with the practical effects of mandatory mediation models are analysed using the criteria of proper purpose, appropriate and necessary measures, and proportionality stricto sensu. The doctoral research can be used as a theoretical background for the introduction of mandatory mediation in civil disputes as well as in pursuit of making the already introduced mandatory mediation models more effective.
