Suchergebnisse

This Article argues that the current era of U.S. civil procedure is defined by its neoliberalism. The Supreme Court has over the past few decades reinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that have made it more difficult for citizens to bring and maintain civil claims. The major decisions of this new era—in areas as diverse as summary judgment, pleading, class actions, and arbitration—exhibit neoliberal hallmarks. They display neoliberalism's tendency to naturalize existing market arrangements, its focus on efficiency and obscuring questions of power, its reduction of citizens to consumers, and its attempt to analyze government through the lens of market-modeled concepts. As the Court's procedural decisions make it increasingly difficult for citizens to bring claims enforcing regulatory law—including antitrust, antidiscrimination, consumer protection, and worker protection laws—the Court's neoliberal orientation lurks in the background and helps to explain procedure's modern progression. In order to fully appreciate, critique, and potentially move beyond the current era of U.S. civil procedure, it is important to understand the neoliberal logic that drives it, as well as the logics and values it obscures and sidelines.

Includes: Legislature's inherent powers in matters of procedure; Organization of the Houses; Introduction of bills; Committees; Passage of bills; Legislative leadership.

The civil justice system has been in a constant flux in the past decades due to changes in society and litigants' behaviour, as well as the increased factual and legal complexity of cases. The number of cases has been steadily increasing in many countries while the available budget required for more judicial staff, improving judicial case management, digitalisation of processes, and the required specialisation, has not in all instances increased at the same pace. This was worsened as a result of the recent financial crisis that affected many countries around the globe and has prompted governments to cut back on public expenditure. Austerity further challenges the demands of effective justice within a reasonable time,1 as is in the European context notably enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The financial crisis also led to a decrease in the funding of legal aid by the government in a number of countries, challenging access to justice for more vulnerable litigants in particular.

The demand for and availability of civil justice procedures for small claims can neither be disentangled nor extricated from the health of the economic climate of the relevant country concerned. In this article, it is argued that despite not being a developed country, Ghana was not completely insulated from the hardships or implementation of austerity measures that were triggered by the global economic meltdown. The inevitability of behavioural changes on the part of the Government of Ghana as lawmaker and provider of the machinery for civil justice on the one hand and small claims litigants as users of the civil procedure on the other hand are also explored in the article. After properly situating the exploration in the relevant economic context, the article makes recommendations regarding how to minimise the impact of the austerity measures on small claims litigants.