THE “JUSTICE INDEX” IS A STEP TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL GOAL 16 OF THE U.N. AGENDA
This paper proposes a method for measuring sustainable development as a means of the implementation of the Global Goal 16 of the United Nations Agenda. This method is the primary attempt to quantify the quality of the rules of the judiciary and access to a court in order to monitor sustainable development in the area of justice. In the recent years, the U.N. drew attention to the fact that qualitative changes should be evaluated through quantitative indicators.
The authors’ methodology is based on the fair trial standard formulated by the European Court of Human Rights based on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the public services standard of the Russian Federation. This indexing method helps to assess the current level of legal guarantees in the rules of legal proceedings and draft legislation, and to establish their compliance with the fair trial principles. Indexing the access to justice has another positive effect – it helps to monitor the local situations and every level of the judicial system.
Putting this method into practice will encourage avoidance of the adoption of bills that might reduce the level of legal guarantees and will assist attempts to monitor its dynamics. It could promote the introduction of effective procedures and better access to court, ensure the improved accountability of all public justice institutions at all levels and support overall societal wellbeing.
About the AuthorsE. Alekseevskaya
Ekaterina Alekseevskaya (Moscow, Russia) – leading law expert, institute of legal regulation.
4 Slavyanskaya sq., Moscow, 109240.
Larisa Treskina (Moscow, Russia) – research assistant, institute of legal regulation.
4 Slavyanskaya sq., Moscow, 109240. l
1. Dasgupta P. & Heal G. The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources, 41(5) review of economic studies 3 (1974).
2. Fourlas G.N. No Future Without Transition: A Critique of Liberal Peace, 9(1) international Journal of Transitional Justice 109 (2015).
3. Gupta J. & Vegelin C. Sustainable Development Goals and Inclusive Development, 16(3) international environmental agreements 433 (2006).
4. Hartwick J.M. Intergenerational Equity and Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources, 67(5) american economic review 972 (1977).
5. Kovač P. The Requirements and Limits of the Codification of Administrative Procedures in Slovenia According to European Trends, 41(3/4) review of Central and east european law 427 (2016).
6. Mani R. Dilemmas of Expanding Transitional Justice, or Forging the Nexus Between Transitional Justice and Development, 2(3) international Journal of Transitional Justice 253 (2008).
7. Shaker R. R. & Sirodoev I. Assessing Sustainable Development Across Moldova Using Household and Property Composition Indicators, 55 habitat international 192 (2016).
8. Sharp D.N. Development, Human Rights and Transitional Justice: Global Projects for Global Governance, 9(3) international Journal of Transitional Justice 517 (2015).
9. Sharp D.N. Emancipating Transitional Justice from the Bonds of the Paradigmatic Transition, 9(1) international Journal of Transitional Justice 150 (2015).
10. Vinck P. & Pham P. Ownership and Participation in Transitional Justice Mechanisms: A Sustainable Human Development Perspective from Eastern DRC, 2(3) international Journal of Transitional Justice 398 (2008).
For citation: Alekseevskaya E., Treskina L. THE “JUSTICE INDEX” IS A STEP TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL GOAL 16 OF THE U.N. AGENDA. BRICS Law Journal. 2018;5(3):64-85. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-3-64-85
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.