Election of Judges: are We Ready to Question the Dogmma?
Election of Judges: Are We Ready to Question the Dogmma?

Author(s): Goran Marković
Subject(s): Politics / Political Sciences, Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence
Published by: Правни факултет Универзитета у Источном Сарајеву
Keywords: Judiciary;Judges;Judicial Council;Parliament;Selection of judges;Political elites;Merit;
Summary/Abstract: The purpose of this work is to explore two methods of election of judges: election by the parliament and by the judicial council. The author compares these methods of election of judges using few principles which have to be fulfilled: legitimacy, accountability, and independence of judges, as well as merit criterion. The author examines advantages and weaknesses of both methods. His hypothesis is that the judiciary is one of branches of state power, and that therefore the judges have to be legitimate and accountable since they have to be in a way responsible to the people who are the bearer of the sovereign power. This could be achieved only through direct or indirect election of judges. Since the author rejects direct election of judges, he finds out that the only way to achieve judges’legitimacy is through their election by parliament. This method of election has one main weakness, namely very strong possibility that the parliament would elect judges according to political rather than professional (merit) criterion. This is the reason why the author thinks that there should not be parliament’s monopoly in the process of election since the judges have to be elected on the proposal of the judicial council among candidates who have to pass special exam.

• Details
• Contents