I’m a social scientist, leading U4's work on corruption and anti-corruption measures in the 

, including anti-corruption agencies and special courts. I also coordinate 

Before coming to Bergen and U4 in 2013, I was an adviser for the  

Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia

Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission  (KPK)

 in Jakarta as an integrated expert. The KPK was the subject of my PhD thesis that I completed in 2012 at the Department of Management and Marketing and the Asian Law Centre at the University of Melbourne, Australia. I hold a Master’s degree in Southeast Asian studies, business and economics, and sociology from the University of Passau, Germany. 

Over the years as a U4 adviser, I’ve had the fortune to do workshops and short-term assignments in many countries, including Afghanistan, Benin, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kenya, Kosovo, Malawi, Nepal, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, and Zambia.

all my recent publications on the CMI profile page

What U4 and others do to advance research and reduce corruption in the justice sector, and the role of justice sector actors in controlling corruption

U4 applies a two-pronged approach to the justice sector addressing both: justice sector institutions as part of the problem and as part of the solution. In the 2012 study 

 U4 found that while anti-corruption measures in the judiciary are reportedly high in impact, the evidence base for this is weak. An important part of our work on the justice sector is therefore to continuously map a broad variety of interventions and evidence of successes and failures. We explore alternative actors and new mechanisms to conventional institutions, such as special 

In addition to anti-corruption agencies and courts, we appreciate the interdependence of different justice and law enforcement actors. Institutions such as the police, public prosecution and prison services, bar associations, state and civil society legal aid providers, and institutions for informal dispute resolution also play important roles and will be included  in future research and activities.

In 2018, we started investigating peer-to-peer learning and support processes in the justice sector and the role that donors can play in facilitating these. Processes can involve different degrees of engagement from specialist conferences, study visits, to twinning projects and the placement of international personnel (i.e. judges), if not special units, in local institutions. We plan to look at the range of tools and their declared purpose, and find out how effective they are. See for example a comparative analysis of 

peer-based anti-corruption interventions in Guatemala and Kosovo

The international policy agenda at a glance

Levels of attention to corruption in justice sector policy and practice vary across sub-areas. We observe a trend towards more holistic approaches to justice sector reform that recognise the independence of justice sector institutions, especially in the criminal justice chain. See for example U4 partners’ ongoing projects in 

. But many policy initiatives and a lot of programming still only targets individual institutions.

The policy work addressing corruption is most developed in relation to the 

– if other justice sector institutions are used as a yardstick. Although 

 has probably received even more public attention – for example trough the 

 – there seem to be fewer explicit anti-corruption approaches for this sub-area in development programming.

 – an association of high-ranking judges from different countries – developed the 

 ‘to provide guidance to judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct.’ The Principles have become a reference point for judicial codes of conduct around the world and fed into article 11 of the 

United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)

Implementation Guide and Evaluative Framework

In 2015, U4 surveyed the types of support U4 partners offered to courts and anyone working in courts, including clerks). The 

Mapping of anti-corruption tools in the judicial sector

 found a variety of anti-corruption tools already included in these agencies’ bilateral judicial reform programmes. The tools are not frequently employed, yet, and they are sometimes implemented under a different label to avoid the sensitive implications of tackling corruption among those charged with upholding the law. Remarkable is the absence of support for the use of many control and oversight tools, budgeting and procurement tools, and some human resource instruments to prevent and detect corruption in the judicial sector. U4’s respondents believed that it is at least partly the lack of internal donor capacity and expertise in adapting existing anti-corruption tools to the judicial sector that underlies the absence of these instruments from bilateral judicial reform programmes.

For other justice sector institutions, a corruption focus in policy and programming is only emerging. 

Detention and corrections institutions (prisons)

 are literally locked away from the public eye. This makes external assessments and public oversight more difficult to conduct. There is very little systematic research on corruption in prisons. It may be that a bias against prison inmates as criminals also plays a role in the low level of interest in this issue shown by researchers, donors and the population at large. The 2017 

UNDOC handbook on anti-corruption measures in prisons

 has marked a policy fieldwhich merits more research focus in the future.

The justice sector is crucial in maintaining accountability of citizens but also other state institutions. At the same time, justice sector institutions can be part of the corruption problem. By undermining contract enforcement and property rights, corruption in the justice sector can impede much needed investment in developing countries. Corruption reduces the accessibility and quality of justice and the legitimacy of not only justice sector institutions but the state more generally.  Sustainable Development Goal 16 gives new momentum to rethink approaches on how to provide universal access to justice, promote the rule of law, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

Basics of corruption and the justice sector

When justice can be bought, it is worthless. Equality before the law should not be for sale to the highest bidder; rather, it is a living principle that is implemented by designated institutions and must be subject to continuous oversight and scrutiny.

When those who serve in the justice sector bend the law in exchange for monetary bribes or favours in kind – by losing case files, evidence, or even suspects, delaying proceedings, issuing questionable sentences, or providing prisoners with preferential treatment – public trust in the institutions of justice is eroded. Citizens may then turn to informal justice mechanisms, sometimes run by insurgents or terrorists, vigilantes, or mafia-like structures, to resolve conflicts and secure their rights. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the state is undermined.

As the state’s enforcers of justice, actors who work in justice sector institutions are crucial to the effective implementation of anti-corruption legislation and strategies. But when justice sector institutions themselves succumb to corruption, no anti-corruption strategy is likely to be successful.

Unfortunately, international indexes such as 

Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer

World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index

 regularly point to poor public perceptions of the integrity of justice sector institutions. In fact, in many countries the police and judiciary lead the list of those perceived to be corrupt.

Systematic evidence of the extent of corruption, however, is difficult to find. Experience-based surveys may reveal whether respondents have paid a bribe within the last year or so, but they do not tell who asked for the bribe and who benefited from it. Was it the lawyer, the court clerk, the judge? A specific instance of bribery may involve a few low-level clerks supplementing their meagre salaries or a wide network of corrupt, highly placed officials.

In addition, such surveys are usually confined to straightforward 

, and other forms of corruption. These crimes are more difficult to observe. Occasionally a scandal comes to light, allowing a glimpse of these more insidious forms of corruption. While such revelations do not provide a complete picture of the corruption within a jurisdiction and offer no systematic data on changes over time, they may nonetheless point to systemic weaknesses and corruption risks.

Corruption risks in the criminal justice chain and tools to address them

 we asked sector experts in 2015 to compile existing corruption risk analysis approaches for the investigation, prosecution, trial, and incarceration stages. Since then, we have observed a refinement and further development of tools, as well as the testing of new approaches. For example, 

International Consortium for Court Excellence

 has led the development and piloting of a 

International Framework on Court Excellence

. This extended instrument is currently being piloted by the Supreme Court in Malaysia.

 Collaborative Learning Projects (an NGO) and the Fletcher School at Tuft University piloted a 

systems-thinking approach to corruption in the criminal justice systems of the Democratic Republic of Kongo, Uganda, and the Central African Republic

. The results were maps that identify factors that cause people to participate in corruption (drivers) and factors that facilitate or make corruption possible (enablers). The maps captured the outcomes of the corrupt practices and the mental models of actors from within the justice system and citizens. Mental models concern the – generally implicit – ways of framing or thinking about issues that often influence behaviours.

The enforcement of anti-corruption legislation requires an efficient, predictable, and accountable justice sector. In the past, judicial reform programmes have often focused primarily on facilities and equipment, court administration, and capacity building – thereby ignoring some of the main factors driving corruption in the justice sector. For such programmes to have an impact on corruption, the reforms also need to address issues related to judicial independence, accountability, and transparency. This includes establishing structures for an independent judiciary capable of self-governance and capable of dealing with issues such as:

establishing criteria and procedures for appointing judges and court staff;

issuing codes of conduct/ethics for members of the judiciary;

oversight of implementation of these codes; issuance of disciplinary measures and/ or dismissal of staff; and

Other measures include drafting and passing procedural legislation providing direction to investigators, prosecutors and judges on how to implement anti-corruption legislation. International conventions and principles offer guidance.

With the ratification of the UNCAC, most states have agreed to Article 11 on strengthening integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary and prosecution services. You can find guidance on what this means for implementation in the 

UNODC Implementation guide and evaluative framework for Article 11

The UNCAC and judicial corruption: Requirements and avenues for reform

Article 11 of the UNCAC requires all parties ‘to take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary.’ In states where the prosecution service is separate from the judiciary, this same obligation applies to the service. Acknowledging that judges and prosecutors are to discharge their duties independently of the government of the day, the article directs that integrity and anti-corruption measures are to be implemented ‘without prejudice to judicial independence.’

To help states comply with article 11, the UNODC launched the 

 in April 2018. The Network promotes peer learning and supports activities among judges. It facilitates access to relevant tools and resources on various issues relating to judicial integrity and supports further development and effective implementation of principles of judicial conduct, corruption prevention within the justice system.

The UNCAC’s relevance for the judiciary and prosecution services, however, is not limited to article 11. The definition of a 

 in the UNCAC includes persons holding executive, legislative, or judicial office. This means that some additional UNCAC provisions can also be considered relevant to the judiciary, especially Articles 7, 8, and 13 from Chapter II on prevention. They promulgate measures like human resource management in the public sector, codes of conduct, and civil society participation to prevent corruption.

 for their members. The International Association of Prosecutors has its own 

. The American Bar Association has worked for 25 years with lawyers world-wide through its Rule of Law Initiative, integrity and accountability being part of much of this work, including in its 

assessments of various justice sector institutions

If, however, corruption within the justice sector is systemic, and there appears to be little incentive or momentum toward reform, then many of these measures may fail to be implemented despite their adoption. Capacity building may not change the basic incentives driving judicial behaviour. In such cases, actions to make court procedures more transparent to the public, civil society, and the media may have some positive impact. In particular, they may work if combined with efforts to familiarise citizens with, and improve access, to these systems (eg improved court administration and case management connected to information systems).

One approach used to overcome problems related to corruption cases, as when slow case processing or even corruption prevents fair and unbiased case treatment — is to establish specialised anti-corruption courts. In a 2016 

review of about 20 specialised courts currently existing

, U4 found very different models at work. These range from individual judges who are given special authorisation to hear corruption cases, to special branches or divisions (for example in Slovakia, Uganda and the Philippines) and separate, stand-alone units within the judicial hierarchy (for example in Indonesia). See U4’s page dedicated to 

 on what questions to consider when contemplating judicial specialisation.

Justice sector

Corruption and anti-corruption measures in the justice sector

From basic guides to in-depth perspectives, all in one place.

Inform your anti-corruption work with handpicked topic related publications, insights and ideas.

International and regional integrity standards for the justice system

Corrupt networks in the Indonesian forestry sector

Bringing down corruption in Sudan through law enforcement? Some international lessons learned

Corruption risks in the criminal justice chain and tools for assessment

Launching an effective anti-corruption court: Lessons from Ukraine

Tackling forestry corruption in Indonesia

Emergency release of people from prison because of Covid-19

Mitigating corruption in informal justice systems: NGO experiences in Bangladesh and Sierra Leone

An International Anti-Corruption Court? A synopsis of the debate

Trial monitoring of corruption cases: An innovative answer to the quest for evaluation tools

Trial monitoring – a new approach to assessing judicial response to corruption cases. Francesco De Sanctis

Mapping anti-corruption tools in the judicial sector

Comparing peer-based anti-corruption missions in Kosovo and Guatemala

The fish’s head: Appointment and removal procedures for anti-corruption agency leadership

The case for asset declarations in the judiciary: Identifying illicit enrichment and conflicts of interests

Uncorking the bottlenecks: Using political economy analysis to address court delay

Prosecuting corruption across borders: Eurojust

The Indonesian Court for Corruption Crimes: Circumventing judicial impropriety?

A transparent and accountable judiciary to deliver justice for all

Anti-corruption justice and collaboration in Kosovo: Challenges and recommendations

Madagascar’s specialised anti-corruption court: The quest to end impunity

Managing a hostile court environment: Common challenges and recommendations

Explore all our resources

Hi!
I’m developing this topic.

Sofie Arjon Schütte

The whole U4 team