International Courts Tap Judicial Expertise

Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson (D. Minn.) was appointed to the federal bench in 1981. He has served as chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations since 1999.

_Q:What is the mission of the Committee on International Judicial Relations?

_A: The Committee on International Judicial Relations is different from the other committees that support the Judicial Conference. Rather than recommending matters of official policy to the Judicial Conference, the Committee serves as a central point of contact for the federal Judiciary with the numerous agencies and institutions involved with international judicial reform and the rule of law. As the United States has become increasingly committed in its foreign policy to encouraging and supporting new democracies, the vast expertise found within the federal Judiciary has been tapped more and more. All parties involved with democratic reform seem to agree that democracy is simply impossible without an accessible, effective and independent Judiciary.

The Committee responds on behalf of the federal Judiciary to requests that come from all over—the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), contractors for U.S. agencies, foundations and educational institutions, as well as countries undergoing judicial reform. Since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, there has been an extraordinary increase in attention paid to the constitutional and administrative underpinnings of the U.S. judicial system. Our judicial independence and competence, along with the confidence Americans have in both their state and federal judiciaries, is now recognized both at home and abroad as one of our greatest exports.

Of course, the Committee would never purport to represent the only correct approach to the administration of justice. Many countries share our long history of judicial independence and commitment to the rule of law. Moreover, we believe strongly in learning from the differences we find elsewhere in the world. Nonetheless, few individuals return from a visit to a less-privileged country without a sense of good fortune and pride in our own system.

_Q:What type of expertise does our Judiciary provide?

_A:Preliminarily, I would observe that our shared expertise begins with the very special connection that exists among judges. Wherever they may work, in whatever type of system, judges share the incomparable responsibility, privilege, and burden of making decisions that will affect peoples' lives. For this reason, I have found, judges have an immediate connection with one another. The bond that exists throughout the judicial profession worldwide is one that can assist international efforts in judicial reform very well. In the early days of the Committee, U.S. judges were sought after chiefly to speak about judicial independence and the Constitutional protections afforded our Judiciary. As democracy has spread throughout Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and now Africa, interest has turned more to the nuts and bolts of running a judiciary—judicial and court staff training; case management; day-to-day court administration; pretrial and bail reform; defender services; and the implementation of commercial laws, such as bankruptcy. In addition, as developing nations aspire to join international institutions, there is increased interest in such topics as intellectual property and international trade. Accordingly, expertise is sought after not just from within our Article III ranks, but also from bankruptcy and magistrate judges, as well as court administrators.

The judges and court professionals we meet are continually impressed by the fact that our Judiciary is self-governing and entirely separate from the executive branch, unlike most nations in the world. Many express a desire to imitate this.

I am always concerned that the mission of the Committee might be misunderstood, or that assistance to international judiciaries is perceived as brief junkets overseas in which a judge delivers a speech or two and heads home. Significantly, most of the assistance provided by U.S. judges and court staff takes place here in the United States. This includes receiving international delegations in our courts for visits as brief as an hour or as long as a week; last year, the AO and FJC alone hosted over 500 international visitors. It also includes mentoring international law students and judges through Judicial Observation Programs developed in coordination with U.S. law schools; developing and adapting written materials that are useful to other countries; and providing advice on case management and procedures.

The key, I believe, is for our judges and court professionals to commit to strong, long-term relationships with their colleagues overseas. This occurs by returning again and again to a country, as well as by hosting that country's representatives when they travel here.

_Q:Who pays for these activities?

_A:The Committee has no money of its own and does not use Judiciary funds to conduct any type of programs or assistance. Rather, all support comes from the sponsoring organization, usually USAID, the State Department, or a foundation. The Committee also does not initiate its own programs; rather, it serves as a resource to other organizations, responding to requests for assistance to the extent that is appropriate and feasible.

_Q:Does the Committee oversee all international assistance provided by the U.S. Judiciary?

_A:Definitely not. Although the Committee fields many requests for assistance, many judges and court administrators have cultivated their own relationships with international aid organizations and courts and individuals overseas. The Committee has never believed that it could, or should, serve as a "gate keeper" for the international activities of all representatives from our courts.

That said, through the staff of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office, the Committee can provide meaningful assistance to individuals from U.S. courts who are involved in international judicial reform. For example, we have many materials about the U.S. Judiciary that have been translated into other languages. We also keep records of the countries to which our U.S. judges and court administrators have traveled, including information about the work they have performed and the officials they have met. These records include our extensive database of judges and court administrators who are interested in international activities.

In addition, the Committee can occasionally assist in connecting ideas to financial support. Recently, for example, we were able to persuade the U.S. Embassy in Croatia to fund a continuing "sister court" exchange developed between a court on the Istrian Peninsula and the Western District of Kentucky.

_Q:What are some of the Committee's current and future activities?

_A:The Russian Federation has always been a source of a great deal of activity. The Committee is presently wrapping up a series of exchanges between our central administrative and training bodies that have involved both U.S. and Russian judges, court administrators, and professional judicial and court educators. Over the next year, the Committee will work with the Library of Congress to implement a rule of law component of the Russian Leadership Program, an initiative that will bring hundreds of Russian judges to the United States to observe our system of justice. Many of our federal courts and judges will become involved in hosting these visits—and we certainly welcome volunteers!

Another long-term project of the Committee is the Judicial Observation Program for international law students, lawyers, and judges. Working with various law schools throughout the country, the Committee has encouraged courts and judges to welcome international students—particularly those from developing countries—into chambers, courtrooms, and clerk's offices, for the purpose of observing the operation of the U.S. judicial system. U.S. law schools have worked with their local courts to develop appropriate curricula, in which international visitors spend anywhere from a few hours per month to several hours per week observing the daily court business.

The Committee tries to keep abreast of the principal judicial reform efforts of the many agencies and institutions involved in international development, including the American Bar Association and the World Bank. We are therefore able to react quickly and effectively when there is a call for the expertise found in our Judiciary. We also coordinate our activities with the National Center for State Courts, which has an extensive international program.

As for the "next big thing" in judicial reform, I would say it concerns China. Even as a single-party state, China appears poised for some major changes in the judicial arena. Recent visitors from China have demonstrated interest in both the substantive and administrative aspects of the U.S. judicial system, including judicial ethics, the rights of indigent defendants, the work of magistrate judges, and the details of case management. Congress also has recently ended a ban on development funds to China. Accordingly, we may see a significant increase in
exchanges of information and individuals between our respective judiciaries.

_Q:How can individuals and courts become involved in the work of the Committee?

_A:First, I encourage all U.S. judges and court administrators to complete the Committee's on-line questionnaire concerning international activity, found at the International Judicial Relations section of the Judge's Corner of the J-Net. This questionnaire seeks to identify the international interests, experiences and special abilities of our judges and court professionals. The Committee uses the database created by this questionnaire to link the many requests for assistance we receive to those individuals who might best fit the need.

Second, I hope that both individuals and courts will keep us informed of the international work they are doing, so that we can share information and experiences. We are eager to hear about international visitors to U.S. courts, travel abroad by our judges and court administrators, and other activities. When we know about this work, we are able to direct future requests for assistance to those who may be the most poised to give it.

I find the great interest in international judicial reform found within the U.S. Judiciary truly gratifying, particularly in light of the challenges and sacrifices involved. As Justice O'Connor has said, there is "an almost universal desire to have an effective and fair legal and judicial system. People have the notion that there are some basic human rights and privileges and that they ought to be enforceable through some system and rule and judicial system that will make them real." The Committee aspires to contribute to the efforts to realize these goals.