Culture is a multidimensional notion that is influenced by a variety of internal and external factors, such as traditions, history, political structure, or religion. In most developed countries, national laws and policies are among the key influences. For instance, laws that establish workplace conduct and policies affect the work culture of citizens, whereas animal rights laws enhance the people’s respect for other beings. Due to such a distinctive link between legislation and culture, judicial review tradition can also have a significant impact on the country’s culture (Reichel, 2013). The primary purpose of this essay is to outline several different international judicial review traditions and to outline their effect on the culture of respective countries.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, judicial review tradition can be traced back to the times of absolute monarchy, when the citizens could appeal to the King to hold ministers to account for their decisions and actions (Coleman, 2014). Today, the United Kingdom follows the traditional model of judicial review, where the Supreme Court has the supervisory power over the government and public institutions (Reichel, 2013). Such a model of judicial review helps to protect the rights of citizens and organizations, while at the same time promoting transparency on all levels of legal decision-making. Therefore, fairness and legal protection are the main values transferred to the culture by such an approach to judicial review.
India
The scope of judicial review in India is broader compared to the U.K. and many other countries. Sharma (2017) explains that the system of judicial review in India is separated into three distinctive areas: judicial review of legislative action, judicial review of executive or administrative action, and judicial review of the judicial action. Supreme Court plays a major role in the understanding of constitutional provisions and their applicability to legislative, executive, administrative, and judicial actions (Sharma, 2017). The Indian model of judicial review strengthens the authority of the Constitution, thus enhancing the court and government processes. Compared to the U.K. model, the Indian judicial review regulations improve objectivity and transparency, while at the same time putting less emphasis on fairness and protection of human rights.
Japan
Japan follows a similar traditional model of judicial review, which entitles the Supreme Court with all functions related to judicial review (Tonami, 2015). However, there are significant issues with regards to the process of judicial review in Japan; Tonami (2015) states that since the enactment of the Japanese judicial review system in 1947, the Supreme Court has been using a rather passive approach: “up until now there have only been eight cases where the Supreme Court has struck down statutes as unconstitutional” (p. 2). The primary reason for judicial passivism is the controversial nature of Japanese Constitution, which was a subject of significant debates and arguments before its enactment in 1946 (Tonami, 2015). The reluctance of the Supreme Court to override the legal decisions has a significant effect on the country’s culture. First of all, it increases the power of public bodies in legal decision-making due to the impaired oversight by the Supreme Court. Secondly, it adds to the recent political discourse regarding the need for a major judicial reform.
Canada
In Canada, a weaker model of judicial review is utilized. According to Dixon (2012), Canada follows a Commonwealth constitutional model with regards to its judicial review process, which implies that “courts have broad authority to interpret constitutional rights provisions, but national legislatures can override courts’ interpretations of rights by ordinary majority vote” (p. 487). Between 1982 and 2004, there were 54 cases when the Supreme Court of Canada found legislation to be inconsistent with the country’s Constitution; 14 of these decisions were subject to an override attempt by the Parliament or other government structures, and only one of such attempts was successful (Dixon, 2012). Such an approach to judicial review affects the culture of Canada in several ways. First of all, it supports democracy, as it increases the number of people who take part in the decision-making process. Secondly, it promotes consistency of court decisions with the Constitution due to the active participation of the Supreme Court in the judicial review process. Finally, the statistics provided by Dixon (2012) indicate that the Canadian model of judicial review actively supports the rights of citizens, thus strengthening the protection of human rights and increasing the transparency of the courts.
Conclusion
All in all, the comparison of different international judicial review models shows how they impact the legal procedures in a given country. The weaker approach, taken by the United Kingdom and Canada, for example, supports the individual rights of citizens and organizations. A comprehensive system utilized in India, on the other hand, improves the Supreme Court’s oversight of the court and legislation procedures, thus increasing control over decision-making. Each approach can thus translate different values to the society, affecting its culture. For instance, in Japan, judicial passivism has lead to the reconsideration of procedures and the emergence of discourse regarding a major judicial reform.
References
Coleman, C. (2014). Judicial Review reform: An attack on our legal rights?BBC UK. Web.
Dixon, R. (2012). Weak-form judicial review and American exceptionalism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32(3), 487-506.
Reichel, P. L. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Sharma, M. (2017). Judicial review-A comparative study. Indian Constitutional Law Review, 1(1), 43-53.
Tonami, K. (2015). Judicial review in Japan and its problems. Waseda Bulletin on Comparative Law, 33(1), 1-12.