"Active" Courts
By Marnip
The court system of Europeia is one of the major building blocks the region has used in order to develop the region into a well-respected entity. Cases have been heard, advisory opinions given, and laws interpreted. However, for many, it seems that the area of the High Court is marked with inactivity. Are the courts truly a place of inactivity or has this assumption been false all along?
"Active" courts may not be an ideal way to describe courts. Activity is an arbitrary measure because activity levels can differ. An example of this is displayed by comparing two separate individuals' activity levels. If individual A is active for five days straight and then inactive for the following five days, and individual B is active every other day during this same period, who do you consider to be more active? Both of these individuals are active for the same amount of time, however, the arrangement of activity fluctuates. The same can be said when comparing two separate courts. If court A has many new laws to interpret and cases to hear at the beginning of their ten days and then none at the end, and court B encounters the same number of issues spaced throughout their ten days consistently. Which court do you consider to be more active? The court that had a heavy workload to start with and then no decisions later, or the court that faced the same amount of issues spread out evenly during the same period.
Another argument making it difficult to define exactly what an active court is involves visibility. Some courts tend to have more visible court activities during their tenure. These "visible" activities range from criminal cases to advisory opinions. Since all of these activities are readily viewable by the public, it provides a look at what the court has been doing. However, many wish to use a plethora of "visible" activities to prove an active court. This reasoning is invalid as "visible" activities vary from time to time. There may be one month when justices hear three or four criminal cases and another month when they hear none. It simply depends on the current affairs of the region.
In a recent interview with the new Chief Justice, Writinglegend, Calvin introduced the question, "What do you feel is the mark of an "active Court"? It seems people always are clamoring for that, but there are frequently wildly different definitions." In his response, Writinglegend discussed many of the issues of interpreting what an "active" court is. "The problem with the Court is much like the problem the Ministry of Foreign Affairs faces in shaping foreign policy; you can do a whole lot but activity is dependent both on "external issues" and "visibility". The Court is active, it definitely is active, the problem that it is facing is what it is doing isn't very visible. External issues for the Court can be summed up by Advisory Opinions, Criminal Cases, etc. and this consists of the main scope of what the High Court does publicly. Due to the fact that stuff outside of the normality isn't very "visible" (legal training specifically), people tend to take an approach that, if we struggle to find a replacement for the Bench, the Court isn't active enough with judicial training." Writinglegend went on to discuss that, while some parts of legal training can be public facing, such as mock trials, etc., other parts of the training involves "private" matters between the trainee and their trainer. These private matters may not be viewable to the public, but they still contribute to the overall activity of the court.
In many real life circumstances, courts are not graded by their activity but rather two other things: effectiveness and efficiency. These two measures are extremely important as they encompass what courts strive to be. Effective courts ensure that, when evaluating a situation, they gather all relevant materials pertinent to the situation at hand. Efficient courts ensure that the procedures and organizational methods put in place allow for trials and opinions to be fair to all involved. Both of these are indicative of a fair and just court system. This is why one should use these two measures when evaluating their own court system. Activity, on the other hand, is an extremely difficult term to define, as definitions change depending on locale and ideologies.
In order to determine the welfare of our courts, we need to address it's effectiveness and efficiency. This will be achieved in two ways. Effectiveness will be determined by how Europeia's courts have handled court cases and opinions and whether all appropriate matters were taken into account. Efficiency will be determined by the time courts took in processing requests and delivering sentencing.
We will start by examining the effectiveness of Europeian courts. Effectiveness is an area where Europeian courts excel. Thanks to the real life education of several of our Justices, we have a basis in which courts take time to examine all aspects of an opinion or case. Cases examine all the rights of the prosecuted parties and include all evidence collected by the prosecution and defense. Judgements examine each specific charge seperately and give rationale to the court's decision. This transparency in judgement ensures that all parties involved can analyze and determine if the court's course of thought was effective in sentencing. In my analysis, I can conclude that Europeia's courts have a strong effective structure that ensures fair cases and thorough advisory opinions for all involved individuals.
Next, we will examine the efficiency of the Europeian court system. After reviewing the case application thread, it is clear that the court moves swiftly in order to hear cases. The latest time since 2012 for a case to be denied or accepted was two days. This conclusion holds true when reviewing the advisory opinions application thread. Advisory opinions were all given within ten days after being accepted showing that the court understands that, while there is no deadline to be met, timelines are crucial in legal environments. Trials move swiftly with Justices ensuring that both parties present their arguments and evidence in a timely manner. It appears as though, while at times involved parties may disrupt efficiency, the court's overall efficiency is well maintained.
In conclusion, a simple way to think of an "active" court is to examine a well-known philosophical thought. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" While a citizen in Europeia may not be able to see the intricacies of the court on a daily basis, this does not mean that the court is inactive. It could simply show that the court has no new issues to address publicly, and they are participating in more private matters that cannot be made readily available for public viewing. That is why it is important, rather, to evaluate courts on their efficiency and effectiveness. These two measures give a more concrete understanding of the condition of the court, and after evaluating the court myself, I can say that the welfare of Europeian Courts is good.
