Research Topics

Publications

The U4 Blog

Learning & events

About Us

U4 Issue

Specialised anti-corruption courts: A comparative mapping (Ukrainian version)

Frustration with the capacity of the ordinary machinery of justice to deal adequately with corruption has prompted many countries to develop specialised anti-corruption institutions. While anti-corruption agencies with investigative and/or prosecutorial powers have attracted more attention, judicial specialisation is an increasingly common feature of national anti-corruption reform strategies. The most common argument for the creation of special anti-corruption courts is the need for greater efficiency in resolving corruption cases promptly and the associated need to signal to various domestic and international audiences that the country takes the fight against corruption seriously. In some countries, concerns about the ability of the ordinary courts to handle corruption cases impartially, and without being corrupted themselves, have also played an important role in the decision to create special anti-corruption courts. Existing specialised anti-corruption courts differ along a number of dimensions, including their size, their place in the judicial hierarchy, mechanisms for selection and removal of judges, the substantive scope of the courts’ jurisdiction, trial and appellate procedures, and their relationship with anti-corruption prosecutors. These institutional design choices imply a number of difficult trade-offs: while there are no definitive “best practices” for specialised anti-corruption courts, existing models and experience may provide some guidance to reformers considering similar institutions. They must decide whether such a court should adopt procedures that are substantially different from those of other criminal courts, and/or special provisions for the selection, removal, or working conditions of the anti-corruption court judges.
Also available in Spanish, English and French
15 December 2016
Read onlineDownload PDF
Loading PDF…

Cite this publication


Stephenson, M.; Schütte, S.; (2016) Specialised anti-corruption courts: A comparative mapping (Ukrainian version). Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Issue 2017:5)

Read onlineDownload PDF

About the authors

Matthew C. Stephenson

Matthew C. Stephenson is the Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is an expert in anti-corruption law, legislation, administrative law, and the application of political economy to public institutional design.

Stephenson has served as a consultant, advisor, and lecturer on topics related to anti-corruption, judicial reform, and administrative procedure for the World Bank, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and national governments, civil society organisations, and academic institutions in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas. He is the founder and editor in-chief of The Global Anticorruption Blog, and the co-founder of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast.

Dr. Sofie Arjon Schütte leads U4’s thematic work on the justice sector, including specialised institutions like anti-corruption agencies and courts. Previously, she worked for the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia and the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission and has conducted workshops and short-term assignments on corruption in more than 15 countries. She is editor of the series of U4 publications on anti-corruption courts around the world.

Disclaimer


All views in this text are the author(s)’, and may differ from the U4 partner agencies’ policies.

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Keywords


anti-corruption courts, Senegal, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Indonesia, Burundi, Botswana, Nepal, Cameroon, Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, Kenya, Palestine, justice sector, Tanzania, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Croatia, Malaysia, Uganda, Bangladesh