A hard look at common law administrative tribunals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1150Palabras clave:
jueces, litigio, tribunales administrativosResumen
Este artículo se centra en los tribunales administrativos de derecho consuetudinario. Por razones jurídico-históricas, estas instituciones se ubican en lo más bajo de la jerarquía judicial, o fuera de ella; los jueces suelen tener menos preparación, protecciones formales y recursos que los jueces del sistema general de tribunales, pero se les exige gestionar un enorme número de casos. Una de las dificultades es que los tribunales administrativos no suelen ser parte de los datos de litigio, provocando unas estadísticas distorsionadas. Otra dificultad es más substantiva: es lógico que a los "tribunales inferiores" se les asignen casos tradicionalmente considerados menos complicados y, en general, “menos importantes”; sin embargo, los tribunales administrativos de derecho consuetudinario suelen tener que ocuparse de casos jurídicos altamente complejos y sobre temas socialmente sensibles, con consecuencias potenciales muy importantes para los derechos de los litigantes, como por ejemplo la bancarrota, la inmigración o el bienestar. Los tribunales administrativos de derecho consuetudinario no sólo deberían ser considerados íntegramente en los datos judiciales, sino que también deberían recibir más recursos y una supervisión judicial suficiente para asegurar su buen funcionamiento y los derechos de los litigantes.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 961
XML (English) 994
Citas
Abou Ramadan, M., 2015. Islamic Legal Hybridity and Patriarchal Liberalism in the Shari’a Courts in Israel. Journal of Levantine Studies [online], 4(2), 39. Available from: https://levantine-journal.org/product/islamic-legal-hybridity-and-patriarchal-liberalism-in-the-sharia-courts-in-israel/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Abu Jaber, K.S., 1967. The Millet System in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. The Muslim World [online], 57(3), 212–223. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1967.tb01260.x [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), no date. Who we are. About the AAT [online]. Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: https://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/who-we-are [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Administrative Law Judge, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 30 September. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Allison, J.W.F., 2004. A Continental Distinction in the Common Law – A Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law. Oxford University Press, 1, 3, 72.
Alon, G., 2002. Vaadat Hachuka he'elta et taarif ha'agra lehagashat Bagaz le-1,500 shekel [Law and Justice Committee Raises the Tariff Fee for Submitting a Petition to the High Court of Justice to 1,500 shekels]. Ha’aretz [online], 26 July. Available from: https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.812584 [Accessed 23 November 2020].
Aronson, O., 2010. Out of Many: Military Commissions, Religious Tribunals, and the Democratic Virtues of Court Specialization. Virginia Journal of International Law [online], 51(2), 231. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1651150 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2018. Chapter 7, Courts. In: Report on Government Services, 2018 [online]. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/justice/courts/rogs-2018-partc-chapter7.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Barnett, K., et al., 2018. Draft Report – Non-ALJ Adjudicators in Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight and Removal [online]. Administrative Conference of the United States, 14 February. Available from: https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Non-ALJ%20Draft%20Report_2.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Baude, W., 2020. Adjudication Outside of Article III. Harvard Law Review [online], 133, 1511, 1513. Available from: https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/03/adjudication-outside-article-iii/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Baum, L., 2010. Judicial Specialization and the Adjudication of Immigration Cases. Duke Law Journal [online], 59(8), 1501. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/62548478.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Bell, J., Boyron, S., and Whittaker, S., 2008. Principles of French Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
Bendery, J., 2015. Federal Judges Are Burned Out, Overworked and Wondering Where Congress Is. Huffpost [online], 30 September. Available from: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/judge-federal-courts-vacancies_n_55d77721e4b0a40aa3aaf14b?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAUA48StV8ew7S8dkJmFm55UUUU4tchN7TLgZGuZoo9XGocSINa8o71c_VlKSPakdDXNN1tnu9nerMt9VfAlbxi4NjC6RmSx3-KLhsyagcp0xK-5OGC5ou32GaOwoSGNdgoHBNmV6dRxJSAxqexhrjit1AkMWRY9SjdFD_AGgSoZ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Bentata, P., Espinosa, R., and Hiriart, Y., 2019. Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over their Dockets. Revue d’économie politique [online], 129(2), 169.
Bowman, H.M., 1906. American Administrative Tribunals. Political Science Quarterly [online], 21(4), 609. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2141149 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Brand, P., and Getzler, J., eds., 2012. Judges and Judging in the History of the Common Law and Civil Law: From Antiquity to Modern Times. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, L.N., and Bell, J.S., 1998. French Administrative Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brubaker, R., 2016. Non-Article III Adjudication: Bankruptcy, with and without litigant Consent. Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal, 33, 11.
Brun, N., 2008. Shoftim ve'Mishpetanim Be'Erez Israel - bein Kushta le-Yerushalaim, 1900–1930 [Judges and Lawyers in Eretz-Israel - Between Constantinople and Jerusalem, 1900–1930]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Burnett, K., 2016. Against Administrative Judges. U.C. Davis Law Review, 49, 1643.
Calabresi, S.G., and Lawson, G., 2007. The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, and the Hamdan Opinion: A Textualist Response to Justice Scalia. Columbia Law Review, 107, 1002, 1015ff.
Calabresi, S.G., and Lawson, G., 2018. The Depravity of the 1930s and the Modern Administrative State. Notre Dame Law Review [online], 94(2), 821, 861–862. Available from: http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/7-Calabresi-Lawson.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Carnwath, R., 2011. Tribunals and the Courts – The UK Model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice, 24, 5–6.
Carnwath, R., et al., 2008. An Overview of the Tribunal Scenes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In: R. Creyke, ed., Tribunals in the Common Law World. Sydney: The Federation Press, 1.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2018. Table 11.2 – Judges, Judges in Rabbinical Courts, Lawyers, Israel Police and Prison Service. CBS [online], 4 September. Available from: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/DocLib/2018/11.ShnatonCrimeandJustice/st11_02.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Chandrachud, C., 2015. Declarations of Unconstitutionality in India and the U.K.: Comparing the Space for Political Response. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 43(2), 309–381.
Cole, J.P., 2016. An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action. CRS Report [online]. Congressional Research Service, 7 December. Available from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44699.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Cour de cassation, 2018. Rapport Annuel 2017 [online]. Paris: Direction de l’information légale et administrative, p. 326. Available from: https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport2017.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Courts of England and Wales, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 30 September. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Crown Court, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 9 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Court [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Decker, K., Möhlen, C., and Varela, D.F., 2011. Improving the Performance of Justice Institutions: Recent Experience from selected OECD Countries relevant for Latin America [online]. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Available from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27451 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Dicey, A.V., 1885. Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution [online]. 1st ed. London: Macmillan. Available from: https://archive.org/stream/lecturesintrodu03dicegoog#page/n14/mode/2up [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Dicey, A.V., 1915. Administrative Law in England. Law Quarterly Review, 31, 148.
Dodge, J., 2015. Reconceptualizing Non-Article III Tribunals, Minnesota Law Review [online], 99, 905, 906. Available from: https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Dodge_Final.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Elliott, M., and Thomas, R., 2012. Tribunal justice and proportionate dispute resolution. Cambridge Law Journal [online], 71(2), 297–298. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197312000505 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2018. Report on “European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice”, Study Nº 26 [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/rapport-avec-couv-18-09-2018-en/16808def9c [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission, 2019. The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2019) 198/2) [online]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2019_en.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Fabri, M., 2017. Methodological issues in the comparative analysis of the number of judges, administrative personnel, and court performance collected by the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 7(4) 616, 618–619, 622–630. Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/viewFile/876/1021 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Federal Judicial Center (FJC), no date. Magistrate Judgeships. FJC [online]. Available from: https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/magistrate-judgeships [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Fissell, B.M., 2013. Note: The Dual Standard of Review in Contracts Clause Jurisprudence. Georgetown Law Journal [online], 101, 1089. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2122608 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Flores, A., 2019. The Trump Administration Opened Secretive Tent Courts at the Border. The Public is Not Allowed Inside. Buzzfeednews.com, 11 September.
Frankfurter, F., 1938. Foreword. Yale Law Journal [online], 47(4), 515, 517. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/791854 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Funken, K., 2003. “The Best of Both Worlds”: The Trend Towards Convergence of the Civil Law and the Common System [online]. LA732 Comparative Legal Essay. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.476461 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Genn, G., 1993. Tribunals and Informal Justice. The Modern Law Review [online], 56(3), 393, 394. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb02680.x [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Gething, H., and Barker, J., 2009. The Upper Tribunal’s power to make determinations of fact on appeal from the First-tier Tribunal. British Tax Review, 54, 351.
Goodnow, D., 2011. A comment from the Chair. In: R. LaFountain et al., Examining the Work of State Courts: An Analysis of 2009 State Court Caseloads [online]. National Center for State Courts. Available from: http://www.courtstatistics.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/29805/2009-EWSC.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Gotfryd, A., 2016. Note: The Safeguards of the Constitution: Fundamental Rights not Disposable Gifts. University of Illinois Law Review [online], nº 2, 627. Available from: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/volume-2016-issue-2/the-safeguards-of-the-constitution-fundamental-rights-not-disposable-gifts/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
GOV.UK, 2019. HM Courts & Tribunals Service. GOV.UK [online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Hadfield, G., 1999. Of Sovereign Immunity and Contract: Damages for Breach of Contract by Government. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 8, 467.
Hailbronner, M., 2014. Rethinking the rise of the German Constitutional Court: From anti-Nazism to value formalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 12(3), 626. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mou047 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Hajjar, L., 2005. Courting Conflict: The Israeli military court system in the West Bank and Gaza. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Han, H., 2015. Redefining Non-Article III Adjudicatory Authority post-Stern v. Marshall. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 18, 725, p. 727ff. Available from: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1590&context=jcl [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Henderson, E.G., 1963. Foundations of English Administrative Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
High Court of Australia, 2018. Annual Report 2017–18 [online]. Kingston: High Court of Australia. Available from: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/corporate/annual-reports/HCA_Annual_Report_2017-18.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
High Court of Justice, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 23 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice [Accessed 10 November 2020].
HM Courts & Tribunals Service, 2019. UK Tribunal Data – Q4 2018–2019 [online]. UK Government Publishing Service. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/808151/Main_Tables_Q4_2018-19.ods [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Israeli Court System, 2018. Doach Shnati 2018 [Annual report 2018] (online). Available from: https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/statistics_annual_2018/he/2018.pdf [Accessed 23 November 2020].
Israeli Judiciary, 2019. Ho'daot Batei Hamishpat – Agrot' [Courts Announcements – Fees] (online), 1.2019. Available from: https://www.gov.il/he/departments/general/fees_16 [Accessed 23 November 2020].
Judicature Acts, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 1 July. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicature_Acts [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Judicial Office Communications Team, no date-a. President of the Queen’s Bench Division. Judiciary [online]. London: Judicial Office. Available from: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/profile-pqbd/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Judicial Office Communications Team, no date-b. Senior Judiciary [online]. London: Judicial Office. Available from: https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/profile-pqbd/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Judicial Office International Team, 2018. The Judicial System of England and Wales – A visitor’s guide (2018) [online], 34. Available from: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/international-visitors-guide-10a.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Judiciary of Australia, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 7 September. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Australia [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Kleiman, M., et al., 2017. Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 7(4), 640–660. Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/viewFile/824/1022 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Künnecke, M., 2007. Tradition and Change in Administrative Law: An Anglo-German Comparison. Berlin: Springer, 16–18.
Lawson, G., 1994. The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State. Harvard Law Review [online], 107(6), 1231–1254. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341842 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Lawson, G., 2007. Mostly Unconstitutional: The Case Against Precedent Revisited. Ave Maria Law Review [online], 5, 1. Available from: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/475?utm_source=scholarship.law.bu.edu%2Ffaculty_scholarship%2F475&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Lawson, G., 2017. Take the Fifth… Please! The Original Insignificance of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause. Brigham Young University Law Review [online], nº 3, 611. Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2017/iss3/5 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Letsas, G., 2019. Non-Justiciability of Prorogation: A Matter of Law and Logic? UK Constitutional Law Association [online], 19 September. Available from: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/19/george-letsas-non-justiciability-of-prorogation-a-matter-of-law-and-logic/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Lundmark, T., 2012. Charting the Divide between Common and Civil Law. Oxford University Press.
Lustig, D., and Weiler, J.H.H, 2018. Judicial review in the contemporary world – Retrospective and prospective. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 16(2), 315–372. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy057 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Maguire, S J., 2017. Note: Too Much of a Stretch: Why Acceptance of Felony Guilty Pleas by Federal Magistrates defies the Intent of Congress and Erodes the Rights of the Accused Regardless of Consent. Drexel Law Review Online [online], 9, 31. Available from: https://drexel.edu/law/lawreview/issues/Archives/v9-web/maguire/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Mather, L., 2021. What is a “case”? Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 11(2-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1149 [Accessed 9 March 2021].
McCabe, P.G., 2014. A Brief History of the Federal Magistrate Judges Program. Federal Lawyer [online], 61-JUN, 44. Available from: https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RMJ-feature6-mayjun14-pdf-1.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Medina, B., 2007. A Response to Richard Posner’s Criticism of Aharon Barak’s Judicial Activism. Harvard International Law Journal Online [online], 49, 1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.992972 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Mejia, B.P.D., 2016. Magistrates after Arkison & Wellness: The Outer Limits of Consent. New York University Annual Survey of American Law [online], 71, 509, 510. Available from: https://annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/71-3_mejia.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Merryman, J.H., 1981. On the Convergence (and Divergence) of the Civil Law and the Common Law. Stanford Journal of International Law, 17, 357.
Ministry of Justice, 2019. Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2019. London: GOV.UK [online], Crime, justice and law. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2019 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Mundlak, G., 2007. Fading Corporatism Israel’s Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Transition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 90ff.
Mundlak, G., 2009. The Israeli System of Labor Law: Sources and Form, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 30, 159, 169–172.
Onţanu, A., and Velicogna, M., 2021. The challenge of comparing EU Member States judicial data. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 11(2-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1151 [Acessed 9 March 2021].
Pargendler, M., 2018. The Role of the State in Contract Law: The Common-Civil Law Divide. Yale Journal International Law, 43(3), 143.
Pfander, J.E., 2004. Article I Tribunals, Article III Court, and the Judicial Power of the United States. Harvard Law Review [online], 118(2), 643. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/4093393
Posner, R., 2008. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 327, 362–368.
Queen’s Bench, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 23 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Bench [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Ramseyer, J.M., and Rasmusen, E.B., 2013. Are Americans More Litigious? Some Quantitative Evidence. In: F.H. Buckley, ed., The American Illness: Essays on the Rule of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 69, 80.
Randma-Liiv, T., and Connaughton, B., 2005. Public Administration as a Field of Study: Divergence or Convergence in the Light of “Europeanization”? Trames, 9(4), 260.
Rappaport, M.B., 2018. Classic Liberal Administrative Law in a Progressive World. In: M. Todd Henderson, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Classical Liberal Thought. Cambridge University Press, 105, 141–142.
Rivlin, E., 2012. Israel as a Mixed Jurisdiction. McGill Law Journal [online], 57(4), 781. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7202/1013031ar [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Royal Court of Justice of the United Kingdom, 2017. UK Royal Court of Justice Annual Tables-2017, Table 3.1 [online]. UK Government Publishing Service. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738615/2017_RCJ_tables.xlsx [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Sagy, Y., 2004. Le-Maan Hazedek? Al Hakamato shel Beit-Hamishpat Hagavoha Le'Zedek [For the Administration of Justice? on the Establishment of the High Court of Justice of Israel]. Iyunei Mishpat – Tel-Aviv University Law Review, 28, 225–297.
Sagy, Y., 2014. The Missing Link: Legal Historical Institutionalism and the Israeli High Court of Justice. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law [online], 31(3), 703. Available from: https://law.haifa.ac.il/images/documents/The%20Missing%20Link.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Schwartz, B., 1953. Book Review: Federal Administrative Law. By Urban A. Lavery. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 101(7), 1092, 1093.
Seidman, G., 2005. The Origins of Accountability: Everything I know about the Sovereigns’ Immunity, I learned from King Henry III. Saint-Louis University Law Journal, 49, 393–480.
Sezgin, Y., 2010. The Israeli Millet System: Examining Legal Pluralism Through Lenses of Nation-Building and Human Rights. Israel Law Review [online], 43(3), 631, 632–633. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700000911 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Shnoor, B., and Katvan, E., 2017. Court’s Precious Time: Transparency, Honor and Judicial Scarce Resources. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 7(4), 825, 828. Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/882 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Shugerman, J.H., 2012. The People’s Courts: Pursuing Judicial Independence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Singh, M.P., 2001. German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, 192–195.
Sisk, G.C., 2003. The Tapestry Unravels: Statutory Waivers of Sovereign Immunity and Money Claims Against the United States. George Washington Law Review [online], 71, 602, 610. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=722583 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Smyth, T., 2008. Overview. In: R. Creyke, ed., Tribunals in the Common Law World. Sydney: The Federation Press, ix.
Stack, K.M., 2015. Lessons from the turn of the Twentieth Century for First-Year Courses on Legislation and Regulation. Journal of Legal Education [online], 65(1), 28. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2670204 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Stebbings, C., 2006. Legal Foundations of Tribunals in Nineteenth-Century England. Cambridge University Press.
Sturge, G., 2018. Court statistics for England and Wales. Briefing paper nº CBP 8372 [online]. House of Commons Library, 16 December. Available from: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8372/CBP-8372.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Super, D.A., 2013. A New New Property. Columbia Law Review Sidebar [online], vol. 113, 1773. Available from: https://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Super.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC), 2018. Annual Report and Accounts 2017–2018. Accounts presented to the House of Lords [online]. 5 June. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/annual-report-2017-18.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 24 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Teller Report, 2019. Overwork in the court: Why the justice looks old. Teller Report [online], 3 May. Available from: https://www.tellerreport.com/post/overwork-in-the-court--why-the-justice-looks-old.HkWKVsFsN.html [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Tsimhoni, D., 1984. The Status of the Arab Christians under the British Mandate in Palestine. Middle Eastern Studies [online], 20(4), 166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00263208408700605 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Bankruptcy Court, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 18 August. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bankruptcy_court [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 24 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Armed_Forces [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Court of Federal Claims, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 26 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Federal_Claims [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2017. Supreme Court of the United States – Cases on Docket, Disposed of, and Remaining on Docket at Conclusion of October Terms, 2012 Through 2017 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/supcourt_a1_0930.2018.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2018a. Just the Facts: Consumer Bankruptcy Filings, 2006–2017 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 7 March. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/03/07/just-facts-consumer-bankruptcy-filings-2006-2017 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2018b. Table B. U.S. Courts of Appeals––Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2017 and 2018 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_b_0930.2018.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2018c. Table C. U.S. District Courts––Civil Cases Commenced, Terminated, and Pending During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2017 and 2018 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_c_0930.2018.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2018d. Table D. U.S. District Courts–Criminal Defendants Commenced, Terminated, and Pending (Including Transfers), During the 12-Month Periods Ending September 30, 2017 and 2018 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_d_0930.2018.pdf [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Courts, 2018e. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts — Judicial Business 2018 [online]. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available from: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/us-bankruptcy-courts-judicial-business-2018 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Magistrate Judge, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 26 August. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Tax Court, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 25 October. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court [Accessed 10 November 2020].
United States Territorial Court, 2020. Wikipedia [online], 9 April. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_court [Accessed 10 November 2020].
van Caenegem, R.C., 2002. European Law in the Past and the Future: Unity and Diversity over Two Millennia. Cambridge University Press.
Zamir, Y., 1999. Administrative Tribunals: Establishment, Makeup and Administration. In: Y. Tamir and O. Hirsch, eds., Batei Din Minhalee'im – Hakama, Herkev Veminhal [The Tamir Book]. Tel-Aviv: Bursi (in Hebrew).
Zarchin, T., 2011. Israel First in World for Lawyers per Capita, Study Finds. Ha’aretz [online], 3 August. Available from: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5039519 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Zer-Gutman, L., 2019. The effects of the shortage of judges in Israel. International Journal of the Legal Profession [online], 26(1), 127. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2018.1489819 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Guy I. Seidman
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
