CONCEPTUALIZING JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC TRUST – FRAMEWORKS FOR COMMUNITY-CENTERED JUSTICE

Olga Tešović

doi:10.5937/ptp2502001T

Authors

Olga Tešović Independent Research Associate, Belgrade, Serbia https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3121-8752

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2502001T

Keywords:

judicial transparency, public trust, participatory governance, procedural justice, emerging technologies in justice

Abstract

Judicial transparency and public trust represent the foundations of a functional rule of law and democratic governance. Transparency encompasses institutional openness, procedural clarity, and the public perception of fairness, forming the basis for accountability, equitable justice, and participatory governance. Despite growing global efforts, achieving substantive transparency remains a significant challenge for judicial systems. This paper examines the theoretical underpinnings of judicial transparency and trust, presenting a universal framework for integrating these principles into justice systems. Through a comparative analysis of global case studies, it identifies applicable strategies—including the use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain—to improve transparency, enhance inclusivity, and address systemic inequalities. The findings show that transparent practices and participatory mechanisms strengthen public trust and inclusivity, offering practical guidance for future reforms.

References

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), pp. 1–30. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1076

Beier, S., Eib, C., Oehmann, V., Fiedler, P., & Fiedler, K. (2014). Influence of Judges’ Behaviors on Perceived Procedural Justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(1), pp. 46–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12199

Bingulac, N., & Miljenović, D. (2021). Lawyer Confidentiality. Pravo – teorija i praksa, 38(3), pp. 42–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2103042B

Bobocel, D. R., & Gosse, L. (2015). Procedural justice: A historical review and critical analysis. In: Cropanzano R. S., & Ambrose M. L. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace. (pp. 51–87). New York: Oxford University Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981410.013.3

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, Meanings and Practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), pp. 269–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010

Dabetić, V. (2024). Independence of the Judiciary as a Path and a Goal – The Voice of the Profession. Pravo – teorija i praksa, 41(2), pp. 57–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2402057D

European Court of Human Rights (2025). HUDOC case-law database. Downloaded 2025, January 25 from https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/HUDOC

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66, pp. 66–75. Downloaded 2025, January 25 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096571?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Ginsburg, T., & Garoupa, N. (2015). Judicial Reputation: A Comparative Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press

Haavisto, V. (2002). Court Work in Transition: An Activity-Theoretical Study of Changing Work Practices in a Finnish District Court – academic dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki

Judiciary Transformation Framework (Kenya) (2012–2016). Judiciary of Kenya. Downloaded 2025, January 25 from https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/JudiciaryTransformationFramework.pdf

Judicial Service Commission (2025). About the JSC. Downloaded 2025, January 25 from https://www.judiciary.org.za/index.php/judicial-service-commission/about-the-jsc

Krstić, I., Tešović, O., Milovanović, I., & Dakić, D. (2021). Remote Trials: Legal Framework and Practice. Belgrade: Forum of Judges of Serbia

Mentovich, A., Prescott, J. J., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2023). Legitimacy and Online Proceedings: Procedural Justice, Access to Justice, and the Role of Income. Law & Society Review, 57(2), pp. 189–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12653

Tešović, O. (2024a). Evaluating International Standards in Remote Judging: Comparative Analyses and the Intersection with Probation Practices. In: Tomita. M. & Ungureanu. R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference “Designing the Future of Criminal Justice System Under the Lens of Technology”, (pp. 132–138). Timisoara: Univeristatea de Vest de Timisoara, Romania, DOI: http://doi.org/10.26352/I516-SPECTO-2024

Tešović, O. (2024b). Transparency of Criminal Proceedings and the Media: Principle, Limits, and Challenges. In: Kostić, J. & Matić Bošković, M. (eds.), VIII International Scientific Conference – Media, Criminal Law, and Judiciary: Thematic Collection of Papers of International Importance. (pp. 167–178). Belgrade: Institute of Comparative Law; Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press