Each political system develops its own structures for conflict and dispute resolution. How such institutions operate have a great bearing on popular perceptions of regime performance. For example, persons who have been maltreated by public officials or find themselves in conflict with others must have an authoritative instance to call upon for a fair hearing. (The importance of this arena has already been recognized by political theorists.)
The adjudicatory function, however, goes beyond the boundaries of individual cases. It also includes how conflicts between groups in society are handled, even conflicts with other countries. What rules apply to resolving such conflicts? This is an important governance question. The legal culture that develops as a result of how arbitration in this broader sense is carried out is important for how people perceive not only the judiciary but also the political system at large. While the notion of rule of law is important, many societies also have informal mechanisms for resolving conflicts between government and private actors. Such is the case, for example, in many Asian countries. There is little doubt that the adjudicatory dimension is important for governance, especially in developing and transitional societies where rules are in flux. How they can be stabilized and turned into institutions that enjoy the confidence of citizens is of vital significance.
New Paper: The Judiciary and Governance in 16 Developing Countries
- View Abstract
- Download Full Paper (PDF - 385 KB)
