Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party. You may opt out at any time by following the unsubscribe link included in every email.
Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 28th May, re-opening on Tuesday 29th.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual credit cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any Sweet & Maxwell or Lexis eBook orders placed after 4pm on the Friday 25th May will not be processed until Tuesday May 29th. UK orders for other publishers will be processed as normal. All non-UK eBook orders will be processed on Tuesday May 29th.
Judicial independence is not just an abstract principle that systems of government ensuring the rule of law must adhere to. It is also a concrete standard, set out in binding (as well as in some non-binding) human rights documents and enforced by human rights courts all over the world. These multiple human rights documents and human rights courts have developed legal norms relating to judicial independence but in doing so, have they taken the shaky nature of the assumption that individuals and institutions can exert true agency, uninfluenced by their environments, into account? The aim of this book is to address this by studying the very particular issue of the effect of the frames employed in print news media on judicial independence. The research question is whether the print news media’s framing of the practice of waterboarding influenced judicial opinions of this practice and if so, did this influence compromise judicial independence as defined in international human rights documents?
The author concludes that the current protections offered by international human rights law against undue influence from the media on the judicial process are insufficient. Although these standards do address the media, they unfortunately do not take into account the influence the media can have in shaping perceptions of law and fact that can affect how judges rule in individual cases. Moreover, these standards do not adequately deal with the potential use of the media by the government or actors in the private sector in an intentional attempt to reduce judicial independence. Although it may be the case that humans may never achieve complete autonomy from the social structure, improvements upon the current state of affairs are possible. The author proposes that certain safe guards can mitigate the negative effects this process can have on the rule of law and the fundamental human right to a fair trial.