Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article challenges the ‘Equal Merit Principle’, introduced to the judicial appointment process by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The author argues that this principle does not take diversity seriously enough and none of its possible justifications stand up to close scrutiny. The author also claims that the doctrine that judges should be appointed solely on the basis of merit is either wrong, for the very same reasons as the Equal Merit Principle, or rather uninformative because it fails to give sufficient guidance to those who select judges.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1052-1072
Number of pages20
JournalModern Law Review
Volume80
Issue number6
Early online date20 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2017

Fingerprint

doctrine
act
offense

Keywords

  • judicial appointments
  • merit in judicial appointments
  • equal merit
  • judicial diversity
  • Constitutional Reform Act 2005
  • Crime and Courts Act 2013

Cite this

Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong? / Győrfi, Tamás.

In: Modern Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 6, 11.2017, p. 1052-1072.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8d9f30b68c074e2ab964f99e38b795a3,
title = "Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong?",
abstract = "This article challenges the ‘Equal Merit Principle’, introduced to the judicial appointment process by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The author argues that this principle does not take diversity seriously enough and none of its possible justifications stand up to close scrutiny. The author also claims that the doctrine that judges should be appointed solely on the basis of merit is either wrong, for the very same reasons as the Equal Merit Principle, or rather uninformative because it fails to give sufficient guidance to those who select judges.",
keywords = "judicial appointments, merit in judicial appointments, equal merit, judicial diversity, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Crime and Courts Act 2013",
author = "Tam{\'a}s Győrfi",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12302",
language = "English",
volume = "80",
pages = "1052--1072",
journal = "Modern Law Review",
issn = "0026-7961",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong?

AU - Győrfi, Tamás

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - This article challenges the ‘Equal Merit Principle’, introduced to the judicial appointment process by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The author argues that this principle does not take diversity seriously enough and none of its possible justifications stand up to close scrutiny. The author also claims that the doctrine that judges should be appointed solely on the basis of merit is either wrong, for the very same reasons as the Equal Merit Principle, or rather uninformative because it fails to give sufficient guidance to those who select judges.

AB - This article challenges the ‘Equal Merit Principle’, introduced to the judicial appointment process by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The author argues that this principle does not take diversity seriously enough and none of its possible justifications stand up to close scrutiny. The author also claims that the doctrine that judges should be appointed solely on the basis of merit is either wrong, for the very same reasons as the Equal Merit Principle, or rather uninformative because it fails to give sufficient guidance to those who select judges.

KW - judicial appointments

KW - merit in judicial appointments

KW - equal merit

KW - judicial diversity

KW - Constitutional Reform Act 2005

KW - Crime and Courts Act 2013

UR - http://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/november-2017/equal-merit-principle-almost-straightforwardly-wrong/

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12302

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12302

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 1052

EP - 1072

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

SN - 0026-7961

IS - 6

ER -