Justice Sector

The justice sector is crucial in maintaining accountability. At the same time, justice sector institutions can be part of the corruption problem.

Corruption reduces the accessibility and quality of justice and the legitimacy of not only justice sector institutions but the state more generally. By undermining contract enforcement and property rights, corruption in the justice sector can negatively affect much needed investment in developing countries.

U4 examines approaches to improve justice sector integrity such as the monitoring of judicial reform processes and social accountability mechanisms. The rationale and effectiveness of specialised anti-corruption tribunals will also be explored. 

This U4 Theme helps you:

Photo: Ben Sutherland on flickr.com

Corruption Hunters – investigating and prosecuting financial crime

 
pdf_thumb_2355
Author: Transparency International
Release date: January 2007

Transparency International Advocacy Toolkit: Combating Corruption in Judicial Systems

This guide aims to help TI chapters and other civil society groups to undertake effective advocacy to combat judicial corruption. In addition to providing basic advice about conducting advocacy, it provides examples from TI chapters of work on judicial corruption, including monitoring the process of selecting Supreme Court judges (Equador), monitoring actual cases (Ghana) and diagnosing corruption problems (Nicaragua). It also includes a Diagnostic Checklist for Assessing Safeguards against Judicial Corruption.

pdf_thumb_873
Author: Grødeland, Å.B. and Aasland, A.
Release date: January 2006

In the Judiciary you are lost without Contacts: Informal Practices in the Judiciary in East Central and South East Europe

This unpublished article challenges the notion that the EU accession process has reduced the scope for informal practices in the judiciary in East Central and South East Europe. Elite survey data suggest that such practices are fairly widespread, that they have largely been carried over from communism, that they are used primarily in response to transition but also to some extent out of habit. Efforts to reduce the negative impact of informal practices in the judiciary should therefore not only seek to enhance the independence and capacity of the judiciary, but also address (1) public attitudes towards the law and the judiciary, (2) the coping strategies the public applies when interacting with the courts and (3) the manner in which judicial staff responds to these strategies.

Top

On this page


Featured themes