Although the systematic study and practice of judicial administration has been spearheaded by concerned individuals and institutions within the United States, interest in judicial administration and court reform have extended far beyond American borders. In countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany, for example, the 1970s and 1980s witnessed increasing interest amongst certain members of the judiciary, government officials, and academics respecting the need to modernize and streamline court organization and, most important, to professionalize the process of court administration and caseflow management. Over this time period, there have been major court reorganization and centralization initiatives undertaken in Britain and Canada, for example; and in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and India, there have been concerted moves to systematize and rationalize the process of caseflow management.
Within these initiatives it is quite common to witness officials from these and other countries devoting close attention to judicial administration undertakings found in the United States via recourse to the burgeoning American literature on judicial administration to attendance at courses and conferences offered by the various American bodies, as listed above, specializing in judicial administration education and training. In this fashion we very much observe the thought and practice of American judicial administration coming to exert significant influence over judicial systems throughout the Western world. This does not mean that we witness these countries developing Americanized systems of judicial administration within their judicial systems but that concerned individuals can and will seek out the American experience of addressing similar issues and problems regarding judicial administration and will then work to fashion viable administrative and managerial solutions to these matters from within the given national political, judicial, and administrative culture.
DAVID A. JOHNSON
Abraham, Henry J., 1993. The Judicial Process: An Introductory Analysis of the Courts of the United States, England, and France, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baum, Lawrence, 1986. American Courts: Process and Policy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Church, Thomas W., Jr. et al., 1978. Justice Delayed. The Pace of Litigation in Urban Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Church, Thomas W. and Milton Heuman, 1990. "The Limits of 'Crash' Programs". Judicature, vol. 74 (August-September) 73-76.
Friesen, Ernest C., 1971. Managing the Courts. Indianapolis, IN: Babbs-Merrill.
Glaser, Howard B., 1994. "Wachtler v. Cuomo: The Limits of Inherent Powers". Judicature, vol. 78 (July-August) 12-24.
Glick, Henry R., 1988. Courts, Politics, and Justice, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goerdt, John, 1987. Examining Court Delay: The Pace of Litigation in 26 Urban Trial Courts, 1987. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Goldberg, Stephen B., Eric D. Green and Frank E. A. Sander, 1986. "ADR Problems and Prospects: Looking to the Future". Judicature, vol. 69 (February-March) 291-299.
Mahoney, Barry, 1988. Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Melone, Albert P., Alan R. Morris, and Marc-George Pufong, 1992. "Too Little Advice, Senatorial Responsibility, and Confirmation Politics". Judicature, vol. 75 (DecemberJanuary) 187-191.
Millar, Perry S., and Carl Baar, 1981. Judicial Administration in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press.
Schafran, Lynn H., 1987. "Documenting Gender Bias in the Courts: The Task Force Approach". Judicature, vol. 70 (February-March) 280-290.
Solomon, Maureen, and Douglas K. Somerlot, 1987. Caseflow Management in the Trial Court: Now and for the Future. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Stumpf, Harry P., 1988. American Judicial Politics. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wasby, Stephen L., 1989. "Technology in Appellate Courts". Judicature, vol. 73 (August-September) 90-97.
Wheeler, Russell R., and Howard R. Whitcomb, eds., 1977. Judicial Administration: Text and Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wold, John T., and John H. Culver, 1987. "The Defeat of the California Justices: The Campaign, the Electorate, and the Issue of Judicial Accountability". Judicature, vol. 70 (AprilMay) 348-355.
JUDICIAL REVIEW. The power of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality and validity of actions of the other branches of government. This power designates the courts as having the last word on all governmental action.
The origin and subsequent history of judicial review indicate that this power has evolved into a legitimate and accepted practice. This "evolution" or historical precedent is contentious, namely because judicial review involves an institutional power not spelled out in the Constitution. Historical documentation from the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, state ratification conventions, and the Federalist Papers reveal differences of opinion on how judicial review should work in practice. In fact, there is no solid evidence supporting judicial review in the way it is practiced today. At most, historical documents indicate that the founders envisioned some kind of judicial review. Article VI explicitly makes the Constitution "the Supreme