Independence implies autonomy from other branches of government so that the
judiciary can sanction and check powerful political actors, especially the executive.
Studies of independence generally focus on the supreme court (Staton 2004a, Magaloni
2003, Helmke 2002, 2003, Iaryczower 2002, Larkins 1998, Magalhães 1999). Judiciaries
are independent to the extent that judges can rule impartially based on the law and the
facts of the case. For the judiciary to be independent, it must be able to rule against
powerful political actors and have those rulings implemented.
While other scholars have focused on efficiency, I combine efficiency into a
broader category of “effectiveness” that refers to the ability of the judiciary to process
cases in both an effective and timely manner. Thus effectiveness encompasses the
judiciary’s ability to control crime and corruption. Corruption erodes public confidence
in judicial institutions and undermines their ability to carry out their functions. Whereas
independence is largely concerned with the supreme court, effectiveness involves state
and local judicial institutions such as courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agents.
Access suggests not only that there are enough judges and courts so that everyone
has physical access to the justice system, but it also implies that everyone is treated
equally by the law. Reducing human rights violations and punishing violators improves
access because it promotes equal protection under the law. If a large portion of crime
goes unreported and therefore never reaches the judicial system, this clearly diminishes
the accessibility of the judicial system.
Theoretical Perspectives
Various theoretical approaches provide insight into the sources of judicial
behavior. Institutional theories examine the interactions between institutions and
4
Convention