Legal and Judicial Sector Assessment

24 items available

Permanent URI for this collection

Items in this collection

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Publication
    Alternative Mechanisms of Service Delivery : Legal and Regulatory Review, Volume 2. Appendices
    (Washington, DC, 2009-11) World Bank
    This report reviews the Indonesian legal and regulatory framework that might support or obstruct the promotion of alternative mechanisms of service delivery (AMSD). AMSD, as it has been translated in Indonesian, is a term used especially in Canada to describe an array of strategies and tools that government can use to deliver services in "not the normal way'. 'Alternative' is used in the sense of 'alternative lifestyle" or 'not traditional'. The objectives of the project in relation to promoting AMSD within regional governments are: i) assistance to government in the rationalization of different institutional arrangements for the delivery of sub-national public services; and ii) aid in the development and implementation of new (contracting) methods for service delivery. The report aims to describe the current proximate legal and regulatory framework within which the eight strategies work. The report provides the basis for understanding where the strategies already have 'support' and where the framework needs improving or additions.
  • Publication
    Alternative Mechanisms of Service Delivery : Legal and Regulatory Review, Volume 1. Main Text
    (Washington, DC, 2009-11) World Bank
    This report reviews the Indonesian legal and regulatory framework that might support or obstruct the promotion of alternative mechanisms of service delivery (AMSD). AMSD, as it has been translated in Indonesian, is a term used especially in Canada to describe an array of strategies and tools that government can use to deliver services in "not the normal way'. 'Alternative' is used in the sense of 'alternative lifestyle" or 'not traditional'. The objectives of the project in relation to promoting AMSD within regional governments are: i) assistance to government in the rationalization of different institutional arrangements for the delivery of sub-national public services; and ii) aid in the development and implementation of new (contracting) methods for service delivery. The report aims to describe the current proximate legal and regulatory framework within which the eight strategies work. The report provides the basis for understanding where the strategies already have 'support' and where the framework needs improving or additions.
  • Publication
    Uganda - Legal and Judicial Sector Study Report
    (World Bank, 2009-07-01) World Bank
    This study examines and evaluates developments in the Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) institutions, noting both the achievements and continuing challenges of reform under first phase Sector Investment Plan (SIP I) and SIP II. It pays particular attention to the SIP guidelines and objectives and to the outstanding challenges described in various reviews of the JLOS institutions, more specifically: (a) the commercial court; (b) the impact of the establishment of the centre for arbitration and dispute resolution on case backlogs; (c) the adequacy of legal education to meet the needs of the sector in view of recent reforms, and (d) the provision of legal aid services to the poor to increase their access to justice. The study also touches on the challenges identified by the JLOS Medium Term Evaluation (MTE), which warranted detailed study and which informed the development of SIP II. They include law reform, legal education, and access to justice for the poor and particularly in the conflicted areas of Uganda.
  • Publication
    Bulgaria - Resourcing the Judiciary for Performance and Accountability : A Judicial Public Expenditure and Institutional Review
    (Washington, DC, 2008-06) World Bank
    This report examines why, given the increasing resources allocated to the judiciary, there seem to have been only modest improvements in judicial performance. It lifts the veil on the conflicting opinions on the reasons for slow progress on performance and efficiency by analyzing the institutional environment within which the judiciary functions and the key incentives propelling the policy stances and actions of major institutional actors. A supply-demand approach is then used to review the challenges behind improving judicial performance, focusing on resource allocation and management issues on the supply side and on case inflow on the demand side. This perspective enables consideration of both supply and demand issues impacting judicial performance and offers an opportunity to suggest actions and policy responses that could enable policy makers to manage demand more effectively while strengthening access to justice. Overall, therefore, improving judicial performance now requires a shift from increasing the overall level of resources to approaches that do not increase the burden on the central budget. The key challenge now confronting Bulgaria's judiciary is to build on the reforms so far by developing, financing and implementing a judiciary-wide modernization program to sustain the transformation and demonstrate impact through monitor able indicators of performance. The information and analysis in this report much of it familiar to the leadership of Bulgaria's judiciary, executive and legislature could facilitate a consensus between the three branches of power on the resources that the judiciary could realistically expect to receive, and on the results that it can be expected to achieve, given existing resource and capacity constraints. In this dialogue, an exclusive focus on judicial independence could risk diverting attention from concrete measures needed to ensure that the judiciary is adequately resourced and that mechanisms to ensure the efficient use of resources and improved performance are in place. Indeed, judicial independence is a fundamental principle guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Bulgaria, and unconditionally respected with regard to the judiciary's adjudicative functions. However, sustained focus on the achievement of performance goals could have important potential long-term benefits for the judicial system, not only in terms of increased budgetary resources, but more importantly in terms of increased public trust and confidence.