Newsroom

Promoting a Strong Judicial Branch Across the Globe

Building an effective judicial system is neither a small nor an easy task. However, every day countries across the globe are trying to build and rebuild their judiciaries to better serve their citizens' needs.

The Committee on International Judicial Relations, currently chaired by Judge Robert H. Henry (10th Circuit), was established by the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States in 1993. It was created in response to requests for assistance from newly emerging democracies and developing countries.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 dramatically increased international requests for information about judicial independence, legal traditions, and effective court administration in the United States, according to Wanda Rubianes, senior attorney for the Administrative Office's Article III Judges Division, which supports the Committee. The Committee now serves as a resource in the establishment and expansion of the rule-of-law around the world.

Unlike other committees, the Committee on International Judicial Relations does not make policy recommendations nor does it initiate its own programs. It serves as a central point of contact and resource for the Judiciary. It maintains a constant dialogue with agencies in the executive branch, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department, and with other organizations like the World Bank. The committee has 13 members, who are appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States and generally serve for three years, subject to reappointment.

Every year, more than 600 judges and court administrators from other countries come to the AO for briefings about the U.S. judicial system, said Karen Hanchett, another member of the Article III Judges Division and Committee staff. Last year, some of the countries that sent visitors were Japan, China, Albania, India, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Ukraine.

U.S. judges are often asked to speak at the briefings either in person or via video communication. U.S. judges also travel abroad with funding provided by executive branch agencies or by U.S. Government contractors responsible for rule-of-law programs.

"Different countries have different priorities when it comes to the issues they are concerned about" Rubianes said, "We don't tell our visitors what we think will work in their countries. Rather, we provide them with information about our system of justice and they decide and implement what works best for them, based on their political, social, and historical reality."

The Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations also plays a significant role in the rule-of-law component for the Open World Program, which provides Russian judges, and more recently judges from the Ukraine, an opportunity to interact directly with U.S. federal and state judges.

The program began in 2001. Since then, about 200 Russian judges each year have visited the Administrative Office in Washington for an intensive two-day overview of the federal and state courts. They then meet with judges and court officials in local communities for an additional eight days. The entire program is facilitated by the Independent Open World Leadership Center at the Library of Congress, which contracts with nonprofit organizations for the other components of the exchange program.

Sometimes countries aren't ready to implement changes to their judicial systems at the time of their visit, but it's helpful for them to see what is possible. This is particularly so where it concerns the use of technology. "We help judges and administrators in other countries by sharing information that they may only be able to use at a later date," Hanchett said.

Rubianes added that the Committee's greatest value "is the ability that its members have to facilitate interaction between U.S. judges and their counterparts in other countries. This international dialogue allows judges in other countries to better understand why the rule-of-law is central to the stability of the U.S. judicial system. It also allows all of us to learn much from and about the experience of other judicial systems."