文章基本信息

标题：The Elusive Search for Accountability: Evaluating Adjudicative Tribunals
本地全文：下载
作者：Lorne Sossin ; Steven J. Hoffman
期刊名称：Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice
印刷版ISSN：0710-0841
出版年度：2010
卷号：28
期号：2
页码：343-360
DOI：10.22329/wyaj.v28i2.4503
出版社：University of Windsor
摘要：Evaluating the success of adjudicative tribunals is an important but elusive undertaking. Adjudicative tribunals are created by governments and given statutory authority by legislatures for a host of reasons. These reasons may and often do include legal aspects, policy aspects and partisan aspects. While such tribunals are increasingly being asked by governments to be accountable, too often this devolves into publishing statistics on their caseload, dispositions, budgets and staffing. We are interested in a different and more basic question – are these tribunals successful? How do we know, for example, whether the remedies ordered by a tribunal actually do advance the purposes for which it was created? Can the success of an adjudicative tribunal be subject to meaningful empirical validation? While issues of evaluation and accountability cut across national and jurisdictional boundaries, the authors argue that this type of question can only be addressed empirically, by actually looking to the practice of a particular board or boards, in the context of a particular statute or statutes, and in particular jurisdictions at particular times. Such accounts can and should form the basis for comparative study. Only through comparative study can the value and limitations of particular methodologies become apparent. This study takes as its case study the role of adjudicative tribunals in the health system. The authors draw primarily from Canadian tribunal experience, though examples from other jurisdictions are used to demonstrate the potential of empirical evaluation. The authors discuss the relative dearth of empirical study in administrative law and argue that it ought to be the focus of the discussion on accountability in administrative justice.Évaluer le succès de tribunaux qui tranchent des litiges est une entrepriseimportante mais difficile à effectuer. Les tribunaux qui tranchent des litigessont créés par des gouvernements et dotés de pouvoir légal par des législaturespour une multitude de raisons. Ces raisons peuvent inclure des aspects légaux,des aspects liés à des politiques et des aspects partisans ce qui est souvent le cas.Quoique les gouvernements demandent de plus en plus à de tels tribunaux de rendre compte, trop souvent, ceci se réduit à la publication de statistiques sur le nombre de cas traités, leurs dispositions, les budgets et le personnel. Une question différente et plus fondamentale nous intéresse – ces tribunaux réussissent-ils? Comment savons-nous, par exemple, si les recours ordonnés par un tribunal font en fait avancer les objectifs pour lesquels il a été créé? Le succès d’un tribunal qui tranche des litiges peut-il faire l’objet de validation empirique signifiante? Quoique les questions d’évaluation et du devoir de rendre compte traversent des frontières entre nations et champs de compétence, les auteurs soutiennent que ce genre de question ne peut être traité qu’empiriquement, en examinant en fait les pratiques d’un conseil ou de conseils particuliers, dans le contexte d’une loi ou de lois particulières et dans des sphères de compétence particulières à des moments particuliers. De tels comptes rendus peuvent et devraient constituer la base d’étude comparative. Seule l’étude comparative peut faire ressortir la valeur et les limites d’une méthodologie particulière. L’étude de cas choisie pour la présente étude est le rôle de tribunaux qui tranchent des litiges dans le système de santé. Les auteurs puisent surtout dans l’expérience de tribunaux canadiens, quoique des exemples tirés d’autres territoires de compétence soient utilisés pour démontrer le potentiel de l’évaluation empirique. Les auteurs discutent de la pénurie relative d’étude empirique dans le domaine du droit administratif et soutiennent que là devrait être le point central de la discussion du devoir de rendre compte dans le domaine de la justice administrative.
其他摘要：Evaluating the success of adjudicative tribunals is an important but elusive undertaking. Adjudicative tribunals are created by governments and given statutory authority by legislatures for a host of reasons. These reasons may and often do include legal aspects, policy aspects and partisan aspects. While such tribunals are increasingly being asked by governments to be accountable, too often this devolves into publishing statistics on their caseload, dispositions, budgets and staffing. We are interested in a different and more basic question – are these tribunals successful? How do we know, for example, whether the remedies ordered by a tribunal actually do advance the purposes for which it was created? Can the success of an adjudicative tribunal be subject to meaningful empirical validation? While issues of evaluation and accountability cut across national and jurisdictional boundaries, the authors argue that this type of question can only be addressed empirically, by actually looking to the practice of a particular board or boards, in the context of a particular statute or statutes, and in particular jurisdictions at particular times. Such accounts can and should form the basis for comparative study. Only through comparative study can the value and limitations of particular methodologies become apparent. This study takes as its case study the role of adjudicative tribunals in the health system. The authors draw primarily from Canadian tribunal experience, though examples from other jurisdictions are used to demonstrate the potential of empirical evaluation. The authors discuss the relative dearth of empirical study in administrative law and argue that it ought to be the focus of the discussion on accountability in administrative justice.