Comparative Judicial Systems Supplementary Materials

(1) Lasser, Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy, pp. 1-10 (2004).

(2) Klebba, “Comparative Civil Procedure: The Civil Law and Anglo-American Common Law” published in Pravni Zivot IV pp. 1143-1150, Belgrade, 2004.

(3) Merryman and Kaplan excerpts from “Western European and Latin American Legal Systems” p. 660-669.

(4) American Law Institute Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure (2004) (excerpt).

(5) Marcus, PUTTING AMERICAN PROCEDURAL EXCEPTIONALISM INTO A GLOBALIZED CONTEXT, 58 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 709-40 (2005).

(6) Klebba, James M., CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, Acta Facultatis 35 Politico-Juridicae Universitaties Budapestinensis 67 (1997) (The Case or Controversy Requirement).

(7) Dodson and Klebba, Global Civil Procedure Trends in the Twenty-First Century, 34 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 1-26 (2011).

(8) Utter and Lundsgaard, Comparative Aspects of Judicial Review: Issues Facing the new European States 77 Judicature No. 5 (1994) (short article – there is a longer article by the same authors).

(9) Garlicki, CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS VERSUS SUPREME COURTS, 5 International Journal of Constitutional Law, 44-68 (2007).

(10) Marbury v. Madison summary.

(12) Scheppele, A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES ROLE. GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PRESIDENTS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE RULE OF LAW IN POST-SOVIET EUROPE, 154 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1757-2006 (2006)

(13) Utter, J. Robert F., and Lundsgaard, David C., long version, JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE NEW NATIONS OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE: SOME THOUGHTS FROM A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, 54 Ohio St. L. J. 559 (1993).

(14) O’Donnell, Neil F., and Ratnikov, Kirill Y., DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE COMMERCIAL LAW TRIBUNALS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: LAW AND PRACTICE, 22 N.C. J. Int’l & Com, Reg. 795, 851-53 (1997).

(15) Dubinsky, Paul R., THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF FEDERAL COURTS: THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES COMPARED, 42 Am. J. Comp. L. 295-313 and 340-46 (1994).

(16) Scott Carlson, Judicial Reform: Re-Examining Basic Assumptions (2002).

(17) Cullinane, CAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION LEAD THE WAY TO THE CREATION OF A TRUE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY IN THE NEW RUSSIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY? 7 Touro L. Rev. 397, 421-433 (2001).

(18) Burnham and Trochev, RUSSIA’S WAR BETWEEN THE COURTS: THE STRUGGLE OVER THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND THE REGULAR COURTS, 55 The American Journal of Comparative Law 381-84, 446-452 (Conclusion) (2007).

(20) Nageva and Beck, Case Selection in Three Supreme Courts: A Comparative Perspective (2007)

(21) Francois Touret De Couey, “The French Justice System”

(22) 2 handouts on “Ordinary French Courts” and “French Administrative Courts”

(23) Diagram of Russian Court System (one page)

(24) Hendley, REMAKING AN INSTITUTION: THE TRANSITION IN RUSSIA FROM STATE
ARBITRAZH TO ARBITRAZH COURTS, 46 Am. J. of Comparative Law 93-96, 124-127 (1998).

(25) Henderson, TENURE AND DISCIPLINE DEVELOPMENTS IN RUSSIA, 17 European Public Law, 1-10 (2011).

(26) Coughenour, CANARY IN THE COAL MINE: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRIAL JURY: REFLECTIONS ON RUSSIA’S REVIVAL OF TRIAL BY JURY: HISTORY DEMANDS THAT WE ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS REGARDING TERROR TRIALS, PROCEDURES TO COMBAT TERRORISM AND OUR FEDERAL SENTENCING REGIME, 26 Seattle U. L. Rev. 399-411, 423- 430 (2003).

(27) Gorlizki, DELEGALIZATION IN RUSSIA: SOVIET COMRADES COURTS IN RETROSPECT, 46 Am. J. of Comparative Law 403-409, 424-425 (1998).

(28) “Abstention” – (1 page handout)

(29) Excerpts from U.S. Constitution and Judicial Code, U.S. Statutes.