Michigan Journal of International Law Michigan Journal of International Law

Volume 21 Issue 4

2000

Judicial Education and Training in Asia and the Pacific Judicial Education and Training in Asia and the Pacific

J. Clifford Wallace United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil

Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Legal Education

Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation J. C. Wallace, Judicial Education and Training in Asia and the Pacific, 21 MICH. J. INT'L L. 849 (2000). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol21/iss4/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu.

JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING INASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Honorable J. Clifford Wallace*

I. JUDICIAL EDUCATION SURVEY CHART ......................................... 851II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ............................................................. 852

III. FUTURE OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION ................................................ 854A . Introduction ......................................................................... 854

1. Establish Specific Goals ............................................... 8542. Identify the "Roadblocks" to Achieving Your Goals ... 855

B. Characteristics of Effective Judicial Education .................. 8561. O rganized Structure ...................................................... 8572. Integrated Curriculum ................................................... 8573. Committed Administrative Leadership and Control ..... 8584. Modern Learning Methods ........................................... 8595 . F aculty .......................................................................... 86 16. A dequate Resources ...................................................... 8617. Program Evaluation ...................................................... 864

C O NCLU SION ......................................................................................... 864

Judicial education and training is a relatively recent phenomenon,both in the United States and internationally. Most of the world's formaljudicial education and training programs originated in the last fifteen totwenty years-some with permanent facilities, faculty, staff, and re-sources-to train new judges and provide continuing education andtraining of experienced judges.' Such programs can provide invaluableassistance to the judiciary in its essential role of administering justiceand resolving disputes.

* Senior Judge and former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit. The author speaks only for himself and has not sought for or received the views of hiscourt.

This article is based on an address given before the Conference of Chief Justices of Asiaand the Pacific, Seoul, Korea, September 1999, including survey data regarding judicial edu-cation and training in the Asia/Pacific region compiled in preparation for that address. Theauthor attended the Conference by invitation and as Senior Adviser for Judicial Administra-tion to The Asia Foundation. The author thanks those Asian and Pacific countries thatcompleted and returned the survey. The result of the survey has been invaluable in preparingmaterials to benefit the Asia/Pacific region and beyond.

1. See generally Paul M. Li, How Our Judicial Schools Compare to the Rest of theWorld, JUDGES J., Winter 1995, at 17-18, 47 (giving commencement dates for judges' schoolsin various countries in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Pacific, and Africa).

Michigan Journal of International Law

Like their counterparts throughout the world, countries in the Asiaand Pacific region are involved in judicial education and training.2 Thisregion constitutes a wide variety of countries with varying types of legalsystems. The size of their judicial branches ranges from very small tovery large. Likewise, some countries have very well-developed judicialeducation and training programs, while other nations are just at the be-ginning stages of developing such programs.

In order to understand the status of judicial education and trainingprograms in the Asia/Pacific region, a survey was distributed prior to the1999 Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific (1999 Confer-ence).3 The survey was intended to gather information to facilitatediscussion of judicial education and training in the Asia/Pacific region tothe benefit of all countries in the region, regardless of the current devel-opment of their judicial education and training programs. In addition, theinformation compiled may benefit countries in other regions to start orimprove their own judicial education and training programs.

This article first explains the chart in Appendix II, which summa-rizes important parts of the survey responses. Then, some generalobservations are made based on the results of the survey illustrating thesignificance of the compiled data. Finally, some recommendations aremade, based upon the author's and others' experience,4 about the futuredirection of judicial education and training programs as it relates to es-tablishing or reforming such programs in the Asia/Pacific region andbeyond.

Although judicial education and judicial training are analyticallyseparate functions,5 there is no need to differentiate in this article. Thus,my use of "judicial education" includes "judicial training."

2. See id. at 17-18, 47-48.3. See infra Appendix I. For general information about the Conference of Chief Justices

of Asia and the Pacific, see LA WASIA Biennial Conferences of Chief Justices of Asia and thePacific: Brief Background and Overview, LAWASIA, at http://www.octa4.net.au/lawasia/chief.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2000).

4. See generally Charles S. Claxton, Characteristics of Effective Judicial EducationPrograms, 76 JUDICATURE 11 (1992); Li, supra note 1. Claxton and Li are both frequentlymentioned judicial education consultants. See Claxton, supra, at 14; Li, supra note 1, at 18.

5. See J.A. Dowsett, Judicial Education ("The expression 'education' is more properlyused to describe much broader programmes of intellectual, physical and moral developmentthan are properly described by the word 'training,' which implies preparation for the narrowerrequirements of a specific task or range of tasks."), http://www.law.monash.edu.au/JCA/dowesettpaper.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2000)

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 851

I. JUDICIAL EDUCATION SURVEY CHART

The survey located in Appendix I was sent to the chief justice ofeach country in the Asia/Pacific region prior to the 1999 Conference.6

The countries listed in Appendix II responded.The first set of columns records the number of judges in each par-

ticipating nation. If a country indicated that a specified number of judgeswere "visiting" or non-resident (nr), such is indicated in the chart. Oth-erwise, the number is as provided in response to the survey.

The second set of columns indicates the extent of the established or-ganization, if any, for judicial education in each country. This datacomes from question 2 of the survey. A "Y" (Yes) indicates that a nationhas a separate organization for educating judges, and a "N" (No) indi-cates that there is no separate organization. .The number ofadministrative (non-teaching) staff and the number of teaching staff isidentified. Whether or not each country has a permanent judicial educa-tion facility or building is indicated with a "Y" or "N."

The third set of columns provides some indication of teaching re-sources available to judges in each country from questions 4 and 5 in thesurvey. The first sub-column indicates whether the country produceswritten judicial aids, and the second, whether it produces "bench books"to assist the judges. The next two sub-columns indicate whether thecountry records prior educational seminars and whether it has anaudio/visual library for educational purposes.

The fourth set of columns indicates what organized judicial educa-tion occurs in each country. This data comes from questions 7 through10 of the survey. The sub-columns represent initial education for judgeswith less than general jurisdiction, trial judges with general jurisdiction,and appellate judges. The final sub-column indicates whether that nationprovides education during the judge's career.

6. These countries include: Commonwealth of Australia, People's Republic of Bangla-desh, Negara Brunei Darussalam, Union of Burma, Kingdom of Cambodia, People's Republicof China, Republic of the Fiji Islands, Territory of French Polynesia, Territory of Guam,Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Japan,Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic, LaoPeople's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Republic of Maldives, Republic of the MarshallIslands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Republic of Nauru, Kingdom of Nepal,Territory of New Caledonia and Dependencies, New Zealand, Islamic Republic of Pakistan,Independent State of Papua New Guinea, Republic .of the Philippines, Russian Federation,Independent State of Samoa, Republic of Seychelles, Republic of Singapore, Solomon Is-lands, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Kingdom of Thailand, Kingdom of Tonga,Republic of Uzbekistan, Republic of Vanuatu, Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Letter fromChambers of Chief Justice of Western Australia to Chambers of Judge J. Clifford Wallace(Oct. 14, 1998) (on file with author).

Michigan Journal of International Law

The final two columns indicate who are the primary trainers in eachcountry and what branch of government has primary control over judi-cial education programs. The information for "trainers" comes fromquestion 10.c and 13. The data regarding "control" is from question 16of the survey.

Throughout the chart, if an answer is left blank on the survey, thecorresponding cell of the chart is left blank.

II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

The countries that participated in the survey can generally be con-sidered in two basic groups: (1) Those with a relatively large judicialsystem (150 judges or more); and (2) those with a relatively small judi-cial system (less than 150 judges). By examining the data, severalgeneralizations concerning these two groups are obvious.

Generally, those countries with small judicial systems conduct littlejudicial education and have no separate organization for educatingjudges. While most of these countries did not indicate on the surveywhether they had plans for organized judicial education in the future,some of these countries appear to be at a stage of transition in develop-ing a judicial education program Additionally, countries with smallerjudicial systems generally produce no written resources for judges anddo not record (in either audio or video format) the judicial education thatdoes occur for future reference.

Generally, those nations with larger judicial systems are character-ized by having established organized education for their judges. Theseprograms appear to range from well established organizations, such ascan be found in Australia, Korea, and Thailand, to countries still devel-oping their educational program, such as Lao PDR, or whose programmay be in a state of transition, such as indicated by Nepal. For the mostpart, these organized programs are conducted in permanent facilities setaside especially for judicial education.8 Additionally, these larger judi-cial systems are characterized by producing written judicial aids and

7. To state a few examples, the Solomon Islands has indicated that they have "just setup a Continuing Judicial Education Council with a view to establishing training and educa-tional programme for judges." Likewise, Fiji stated that a "Judicial Education Committee hasbeen appointed to plan and coordinate training for judges, magistrates and court staff." Simi-larly, in Lao PDR the "Ministry of Justice is on the way to establish [a] 'Judicial TrainingInstitute.'"

8, The exceptions are Indonesia, Bangladesh, New Zealand, and Kiribati, with Malaysiaexpecting permanent facilities in 2000.

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 853

"bench books," as well as recording prior judicial education seminars forfuture use.

In addition to size, some judicial education experts, such as Paul Li,former Executive Director of the California Center for Judicial Educa-tion, posit that judicial education programs vary depending upon thetype of legal system involved, i.e., common or civil law.9 For example,Li states, in most common law countries, the responsibility to overseejudicial education primarily is placed on the courts, while a Ministry ofLaw or Justice controls judicial education in most civil law countries.' °

Similarly, according to Li, common law countries, such as Australia,identify judges as the primary trainers for continuing judicial educationcourses; however, civil law countries, such as France, list judges as aminority percentage of trainers for continued education, and the primarytrainers are "sociologists, philosophers, physicians, accountants, andlawyers."" Li also suggests that common law countries tend to use"modern participatory learning methods," while civil law countries"follow the law school model" and the "scope of their courses tends tobe limited to general principles of law."'2

Li's generalizations about the differences in judicial education pro-grams between common law and civil law jurisdictions may have someoverall basis, but my view, supported by the data in the survey, is thatthese distinctions, at least in the Asia/Pacific region, are decreasing ordisappearing as countries adopt effective principles of judicial education,regardless of their underlying legal system. For example, while Li statesthat civil law countries give little attention to continuing judicial educa-tion, 3 Korea and Thailand (both civil law jurisdictions) have establishedcontinuing education programs for experienced judges to complimenttheir existing programs for new judges. 4 Furthermore, in contrast to Li'sgeneral observation that in "civil law countries, the judges' schools fallunder the ministries of justice,"' 5 several civil law countries (e.g., Indo-nesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand) indicated that their educationprograms are controlled by the court. 6 Likewise, some common lawcountries (e.g., Philippines, Pakistan, and Australia) have initial educa-tion for new judges,' 7 despite Li's general conclusion that common law

9. See Li, supra note 1, at 17-18.10. Id. at 47-48.11. Infra Appendix II; see also Li, supra note 1, at 17-18.12. Li, supra note 1, at48.13. See id. at 17.14. See infra Appendix II.15. Li, supra note 1, at 47.16. See infra Appendix II.17. See id.

Michigan Journal of International Law

countries focus on continued education, such as in-service training, andfocus very little on pre-service education. 8 Finally, the majority of train-ers are judges in some civil law countries, such as Korea and Japan, 9

although Li found that the primary judicial trainers in civil law countriesare non-judges.2°

One important finding in the survey escapes characterization by ju-dicial size or legal system: most countries, even some with permanentjudicial education facilities, indicated that they do not maintain a libraryof judicial education materials, including audio/visual resources. Onlysome states in India, France (whose judicial system encompassesPapeete), Australia, Malaysia, and New Zealand have judicial educationlibraries.

III. FUTURE OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION

The observations in Part II help provide some indication of whereeach nation in the Asia/Pacific region has been in providing judicialeducation and the direction in which each country is currently moving.With this background, I now turn to some observations and recommen-dations concerning providing effective and efficient education to thejudges in this region. These recommendations are based upon my ownexperience, as well as the writings of judicial educators. My experienceis that general principles of effective judicial education do not depend ona particular type of underlying legal system to be effective. Rather, suc-cessful judicial education focuses on common principles applicable to allcountries, whether large or small, or based on civil or common law.

A. Introduction

1. Establish Specific Goals

The first step that a country must make in either establishing or im-proving upon an established judicial education program is to set specificgoals based on principles of effective judicial education. These goalsmust be directed toward achieving the predetermined purpose of the

21program.

18. See Li, supra note 1, at 17.19. See infra Appendix II.20. See Li, supra note 1, at 17.21. Claxton proposes that we must expand our purpose from asking the question, "What

do judges need to know?" to instead asking the question "What do judges need to know, andwhat do they need to be able to do?" Claxton, supra note 4, at 12 (internal quotations omit-

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 855

2. Identify the "Roadblocks" to Achieving Your Goals

A determination should be made not only where judicial educationshould be in the future, but what roadblocks may have impeded accom-plishing goals in the past. Thus, those roadblocks should be addressedand avoided in the future. While nearly all of the responses to the surveyindicate that each nation agrees that judicial education is important, mostof the countries with relatively small judicial systems have no organized

22educational programs for their judges. A few possible "roadblocks" toestablishing organized programs in those countries are evident from thesurvey responses.

Perhaps the most frequently mentioned impediment to organized ju-dicial education is lack of resources and lack of funding. Certainly, whena judicial system is small, the cost per judge of providing independentorganized education may be prohibitive.23 Additionally, asking a busyjudge to find time for education can prove challenging 4 Lack of re-sources requires judicial education programs to be creative-a topicaddressed later.25

Another impediment to organized judicial education is prohibitivepublic policy, tradition, or the erroneous perception that judicial educa-tion is not needed. For example, one Asian/Pacific nation has a policythat only nationals may represent that country at international meetings,such as the Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific. Conse-quently, the Chief Justice of that country, a non-national, will missopportunities at international conferences to participate in the discussionand development of ideas that could assist the country he represents.Another country responded to the survey that, despite the absence of aseparate organization for educating judges, its judiciary is consistentlyranked high in terms of its "legal framework" and "quality of justice."

ted). As Claxton explains, this "broader definition [of purpose] suggests a highly action-oriented approach that is designed to help judges develop the abilities they need to do a goodjob as they move through their careers." Id.; see also LIVINGSTONE ARMYTAGE, EDUCATINGJUDGES 156-58 (1996).

22. See infra Appendix II.23. As is discussed infra Part III.B.6, that cost may be reduced by efficiently pooling re-

sources among smaller nations, and properly utilizing modem technologies to share audio,video, written, and other multimedia resources in a cost effective manner.

24. See Australian Law Reform Commission, Discussion Paper 62: Review of the Fed-eral Civil Justice System, § 3.85 (1999) ("The time taken for education is time away fromactive case management or decision making."), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/dp/62 (last visited Oct. 30, 2000); Australian Law Reform Commission, ReportNo. 89: Managing Justice, § 2.190 (1999) ("[It is] sometimes difficult to convince judges tomake time. in their busy schedules for judicial education .... "), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/89 (last visited Oct. 30, 2000).

25. See infra Part III.B.6.

Michigan Journal of International Law

Clearly, however, this does not mean that a judge's efficient and fairadjudication of cases could not improve even more with effective edu-cation.

If the education that is currently provided to the judges of theAsia/Pacific region is to improve, all must necessarily be willing tomake changes. There must first be agreement that there is room for im-provement (i.e., judges are not perfect); only then will the necessary

26changes for improvement be made.A third possible impediment to effective judicial education is that

current judges in many smaller nations may feel unqualified to act asteachers due to their own lack of education. This position, however, ig-nores the value of pure "experience" as an asset in educating new andless experienced judges. There is, of course, an important place for edu-cating judges on general principles of law. More importantly, I suggest,a full curriculum for judicial education must include a discussion on finetuning of trial and decision-making skills, case management, avoidingbias, mediation, and a number of other topics that are more effectivelytaught by an experienced judge (even one without formal judicial edu-cation) than by an "expert" or "professor" who usually does not havepractical experience and may be more inclined to "lecture" than to"engage" the learners. Thus, in reforming or establishing a judicial edu-cation program, countries must rely upon the invaluable resource ofjudicial experience to provide complete education for judges.27

B. Characteristics of Effective Judicial Education

Several characteristics of effective judicial education are identifi-able. Each one must be considered when reforming, developing, orinitially establishing an independent judicial education program, in order

26. The words of fellow judges are instructive in this regard. In Chief Justice Gleeson ofAustralia's words, "Judicial education is no longer seen as requiring justification. We are pastthe stage of arguing about whether there should be formal arrangements for orientation andinstruction of newly-appointed judges and magistrates, and for their continuing education. Ofcourse there should." Christopher Roper, Proposed Australian Judicial College, 1-2 (1999),http://www.law.monash.edu.au/JCA/judicial-college.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2000). TheLord Chancellor of Britain, Lord Irving of Lairg, stated: "Training and development are nowrecognised as an essential part of modem professional life . I... Id. Likewise, Justice Durhamof the Utah Supreme Court remarked: "We must be prepared to deal with new ideas and ter-minology, some of which may be intimidating. It is imperative that we bring the best ineducational theory and practice to the judicial system if we are to make it more responsive andresponsible, humane and fair." Paul Nejelski, Symposium Seeks New Approaches to JudicialEducation, 74 JUDICATURE 104, 105 (1990).

27. See Dowsett, supra note 5 (stating judicial educators "should generally be experi-enced and respected judges"); Roper, supra note 26, at 14 (numbering "judge-delivered"instruction as a fundamental theme of effective judicial education program).

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 857

to avoid common roadblocks to a successful program. Thus, goalsshould be made with these characteristics in mind in order to move eachcountry towards providing more effective judicial education.

1. Organized Structure

The first characteristic of an effective judicial education program isan organized structure designed according to the needs and resources ofeach individual country and directed at achieving the specific goals ofthe program." Furthermore, this structure should be separate fromschools for public prosecutors, attorneys, and the court support staff. Aseparate structure will facilitate a curriculum that is more pointed to theduties of the judge, rather than courses limited to general principles oflaw common to all related professions.29

2. Integrated Curriculum

Effective curriculum is vital to establishing an effective judicial edu-cation program. The experience level of the participating judges must beconsidered in the development of courses in order to gain the most bene-

fit possible. ° Then, in addition to considering level of experience, an

28. Li concludes that the model program would "provide for (1) new judges' orientation,(2) continuing education updates, (3) advanced education for experienced judges, and (4)benchbooks, benchguides, videotapes, and audiotapes for self-study and in-court use." Li,supra note 1, at 49; see also Roper, supra, note 26, at 17-24 (suggesting similar programs).

29. See Li, supra note 1, at 49.30. Li explains that while the subjects tend to be the same for both new and experienced

judges, the depth and focus of the course will vary. He divides a proposed curriculum into thefollowing areas:

Basic courses instruct new judges on the substantive law and procedures governing aparticular courtroom proceeding; highlight common problems likely to be encountered inhandling that proceeding; and tutor them on the successful and unsuccessful methods used byexperienced judges. Basic courses provide new judges with fundamental competence to dis-charge their duty assignments fairly, correctly, and efficiently.

Intermediate courses help judges maintain their competence by keeping them up-to-dateon recent law changes; encourage judges to work together to explore new methods of han-dling court matters; and promote uniformity among judges in judicial practices andprocedures.

Advanced courses broaden the competence and stimulate the growth of experiencedjudges. They prepare judges to undertake new assignments or brush up their skills when re-turning to former assignments; resolve unusual problems; and explore alternative approachesthat have worked for other experienced judges. They also inform judges about scientific re-

search in new areas of law and social concern that affect how they exercise their judicialdiscretion. Interdisciplinary seminars promote better understanding, communication, andcooperation with attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, and correctional officials. Suchcourses also provide judges with in-depth reviews of relatively narrow areas of substantiveand procedural law. They enable mid-career judges to reexamine their judicial philosophies,attitudes, and work habits; to renew their judicial perspectives; and to revitalize their dedica-tion to public service.

Michigan Journal of International Law

effective curriculum model will carefully consider relevant subject mat-ter.3'

Both of these considerations in developing an effective curriculumemphasize the importance of educating judges to perform all aspects oftheir assignments. The focus is not primarily on what the judge needs toknow, so much as teaching the judge how to do.32

3. Committed Administrative Leadership and Control

My experience is that nothing happens in judicial education withouteffective leadership.33 Given the importance of the administrative leader-ship to the overall success of the education program, the governingorganization with the greatest interest in its success should control theprogram. In this case, the judicial branch of the government has thegreatest interest in effective judicial education. Thus, it is logical toplace such control under the judiciary.

Li indicates that control of judicial education is often determined bywhether the jurisdiction is civil or common law.34 He observes, however,that the "general preference of judges is to be under the chief justice. 35

This observation corresponds with the data received in our survey-

Together, the basic, intermediate, and advanced courses comprise a curriculum of career-long education, growth and development. Id. at 47; see also Roper, supra note 26, at 17-22(same).

31. Claxton focuses on the content that should be the focus of an effective "integratedcurriculum." Specifically, the focus should include: (1) specific information (e.g., substantivelaw, rules of the court); (2) judicial skills (e.g., writing, decision-making, management); (3)issues of authenticity (e.g., attitudes, bias, jurisprudential philosophy, ethics); and (4) personalhealth and growth (e.g., physical wellness and financial security). Claxton, supra note 4, at14; see also Discussion Paper 62, supra note 24, at § 3.95 (suggesting topics); Murray Glee-son, The State of the Judicature (stating one Australian judicial education program "covers awide range of topics including trial management, decisionmaking, judgment writing and the

use of information technology ... cultural diversity and gender awareness"), http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/cj/stal0oct.htm (last visited Oct. 30, 2000); Report No. 89,supra note 24, at § 2.188 (recommending "programs aimed at combating 'burnout' amongjudicial officers" in addition to topics mentioned in Discussion Paper 62 above).

32. Specifically, Claxton states that the curriculum must place the emphasis on helpingjudges develop the practical skill and understandings they need to do their work. Claxton,supra note 4, at 14.

33. Claxton emphasizes that "vision on the part of administrative leadership" is evenmore important than funding. Id. This is because improving a judicial education program over

the long haul requires change that is guided by a "larger vision," thinking of the organizationand program as a whole. Id.

34. Li observed that in civil law countries, "the judges' schools fall under the ministriesof justice [while in] nearly every common law country the judges' schools are under the judi-cial branch ...." Li, supra note I, at 47-48.

35. Id. at 48; see also Gleeson, supra note 31 ("[C]ontrol [must be] with the judiciary.");Report No. 89, supra note 24, at § 2.165 (quoting Chief Justice Gleeson of Australia's reasonsfor judicial independence in judicial education programs); Roper, supra note 26, at 11.

(Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 859

nearly all responding countries indicated that it was important for thecourts to retain control of judicial education. Only two countries re-sponded that it was not important to have courts in charge of judicialeducation. Some countries, whose judicial education is currently con-trolled by a Ministry of Justice, indicated a preference to change controlto the judiciary.36 Furthermore, several civil law countries indicated thatthe courts primarily controlled judicial education-in contrast to theprevious trend.37 Thus, the data supports my observation that distinctionsbetween civil and common law jurisdictions-as it relates to judicialeducation-are disappearing. Principles of effective judicial educationare generic and apply equally to all countries regardless of their under-lying legal system.

4. Modem Learning Methods

Even the best curriculum and most committed administrative leader-ship will not guarantee an effective judicial education program, unless itis presented to the participants in such a way that they retain most ofwhat is taught and apply it in their judicial capacity. Thus, for effectiveeducation, the teaching methods must be established with the participantjudge in mind. There are basically two educational models: andragogyand pedagogy. Typically, andragogy refers to the teaching of adults,while pedagogy refers to the teaching of children.38 A brief look at thesetwo models demonstrates why andragogy is generally the preferredmethod for educating judges-particularly for any professional contin-ued education curriculum.

Pedagogy focuses on the teacher's responsibility to convey informa-tion to a relatively passive audience of learners. This is generallyaccomplished by using lectures and minimal student participation. Theemphasis of such education is on transmitting information.39 On the otherhand, andragogy focuses on the learner. It is descriptively referred to byLi as the "peer group model."' The experience of the group of learners

36. In Nepal, the current Judicial Service Training Centre is under the control of theMinistry of Law and Justice, and trains all officers of the court, including prosecutors. TheChief Justice, however, indicated that they are "emphasizing that the proposed Judicial Acad-emy should be established under either the Supreme Court or the Judicial Council." Likewise,Thailand indicated that although their Judicial Training Institute is currently under the super-vision of the Ministry of Justice, it will eventually be under the administration of the Court.

37. See supra note 16 and accompanying text.38. See Li, supra note 1, at 18-19. For more detailed information concerning andragogy

and pedagogy, see ARMYTAGE, supra note 21, at 105-28. For specific information regardingjudges as learners, see id. at 129-52.

39. See Li, supra note 1, at 18-19.40. Id. at 18, 47-48.

Michigan Journal of International Law

is the primary resource for the teaching,4' and the teacher is merely a"facilitator of learning, rather than ... an authority figure who is the re-pository of all wisdom.4 2 The process of education under the peer groupmodel focuses on active learning rather than passive learning, and groupparticipation rather than lectures. Furthermore, the emphasis is not juston transmitting information and knowledge, but on "acquisition of thepractical skills, techniques, and values to apply that knowledge. 43

Proper application of the "peer group" teaching model will focus on"learning by doing."" By focusing on participatory education, there is amuch better chance that the learner will apply the principles taught in hisor her own judicial capacity on a daily basis-thus improving the qualityof justice provided by the judiciary.

In developing or reforming an existing judicial education program,all of the learners' senses should be engaged. Peer group discussion willfacilitate talking and listening by the learner, video presentations anddemonstrations will engage the learner's sight, and "hands-on" partici-patory experience will require the learner to focus all of his attention onthe learning process.45 Furthermore, participants should be provided withhow-to-do-it bench books or guides that will facilitate application ofprinciples taught while acting in their judicial c • 6prinipls tugh whle ctig i thir udiialcapacity. Finally, a li-

brary of audio and/or video tapes should be established with recordingsof past seminars to facilitate individual review and permit judges tostudy at their own convenience.47

41. See ARMYTAGE, supra note 21, at 106 ("Adult learning ... builds on personal expe-rience."); Dowsett, supra note 5 (stating judicial education "must be seen as an opportunity[for judges] to share experiences"); Christine Durham, Appellate Advocacy as Adult Educa-tion, 2 J. App. PRAC. & PROCESS 1, 3 (2000) ("Adults bring a lifetime of experience to everylearning situation. This experience is a very rich resource for adults' learning. Good adulteducation takes advantage of this resource and creates opportunities for adults to reflect onand build on their experience.") (internal quotation omitted).

42. Claxton, supra note 4, at 13.43. Li, supra note 1, at 18.44. Li reports that the following phrase is attributed to Confucius, the ancient Chinese

philosopher:

I hear and I forget,I see and I remember,I do and I understand.

Id. at 19.45. See Dowsett, supra note 5 ("There is unlikely to be much room for formal lectures.

The emphasis should be on self-teaching in small discussion groups, based on well-planned,practical problems."); Durham, supra note 41, at 4-5 (urging learning by a combination ofmethods); Li, supra note 1, at 19, 46.

46. See Li, supra note 1, at 46; Roper, supra note 26, at 23-24.47. See Li, supra note 1, at 49. Indeed, because judges are already experienced learners,

and because of severe time constraints, judicial education programs should make it easier forjudges to self-educate themselves by providing directed learning material for self study. See

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 861

5. Faculty

Given the importance of applying the proper teaching model to fa-cilitate retention and application of the principles taught, it is equallyimportant that teachers be chosen carefully. The focus of the educationshould be on active participation of the learner. As stated earlier, thetrainer should be willing and able to draw from the experience of thegroup as a primary resource of information and knowledge. When se-lecting the most effective judicial trainers, it must be kept in mind thatindividuals such as law professors may be excellent experts in generalprinciples of law, and yet know very little about how attorneys andjudges apply the law in everyday work, much less the details of topicssuch as case management and judicial lifestyle.48 On the other hand, ex-perienced judges are fully aware of how to apply the law in theircapacity and may be the best candidates to facilitate learning of fellowjudges in the peer group educational model. 9

6. Adequate Resources

Even the best thought out curriculum, properly taught and fully sup-ported by committed administrative leadership, will not result in aneffective judicial education program without adequate resources. A re-view of the survey responses indicates that this is, perhaps, the largeststumbling block that most countries, particularly smaller countries, facein developing an effective judicial education program. Consequently, Iwould like to suggest some possible solutions that could be the startingpoint for discussions that will lead to creating real resolution to thisproblem.

The first consideration is how to procure and maintain funding fromthe legislature. It has been our experience in the United States that oncethe state or country has established an independent judicial educationorganization, it then has its own separate line item on the legislature'soverall budget. This may be in the budget of the Judiciary or the Minis-try of Justice, or it may have a separate funding as a separate entity, suchas the Federal Judicial Center in the United States. But the separationfrom other activities allows responsible, convincing arguments to thelegislature as to the necessity of judicial education. Once this occurs, it iseasier to keep the organization properly funded. This observation is par-ticularly true when the educational organization has permanent facilities

Kenneth J. O'Connell, An Outline of a Continuing Education Program for Appellate Judges,68 OR. L. REV. 691, 712-16 (1989).

48. See Claxton, supra note 4, at 14; Li, supra note 1, at 19.49. See supra note 27 and accompanying text.

Michigan Journal of International Law

(rented or designated in an existing courthouse or a permanent judicialeducation building).

Especially for those countries on a minimal judicial educationbudget, the first consideration should be finding an efficient way to poolresources. For example, most countries could at least make audio orvideo tapes of judicial education sessions, conferences, and symposia soadditional judges could benefit with negligible added expense. But asingle small country may not have the resources to establish a completeaudio/video library. In this circumstance, perhaps a regional repositorycould be established where all participating countries in the regionwould have access to such materials. Copying audio/visual media is easyand relatively inexpensive, facilitating use by multiple countries. Fur-thermore, I suspect that there are many resources-i.e., books, audio orvideo tapes, pamphlets, bench books, etc.-that are produced by largernations for their own use that could be donated to a regional library andused as a model so smaller nations could more easily develop their ownsimilar materials. If there is a way to share this information in a cost ef-ficient manner, smaller nations may receive a great benefit frommaterials that the larger nations are already producing.

Another method of pooling resources is to establish regional andsub-regional judicial education programs when individual country pro-grams are not financially feasible. I recognize that there have been someunsuccessful efforts in the past to form joint institutions such as the Pa-cific Islands Institute for Judicial Administration. Nonetheless, I believethat it is time to renew efforts to explore this as a cost efficient methodof providing effective education to the judges of the Asia/Pacific region.Perhaps the experience of certain island jurisdictions that established a"South Pacific Judicial Training Centre" will be helpful. Another exam-ple of regional cooperation was the establishment of the Mekong DeltaInstitute of Judicial Administration. The countries of Thailand, LaoPDR, Cambodia, and Vietnam united to assist one another in judicialimprovements. It will be interesting to observe whether this organizationassists in improving judicial education in this region. Finally, the Judi-cial Commission of New South Wales in Australia, in conjunction withthe Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, allows judges fromother countries to attend its annual orientation programs for new judges.Thus far, attendees include judges from Papua New Guinea, the Solo-mon Islands, Indonesia, and Hong Kong.0 Perhaps this program couldbe a model for further regional cooperation.

50. See Gleeson, supra note 31.

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 863

Advanced technology may also assist in efforts to pool judicialeducation resources. In addition to audio/visual recordings mentionedabove, the ever expanding Internet may prove to be a cost effectivemethod of sharing information between countries in the Asia/Pacificregion. The Internet has provided a forum where publications and in-formation may be shared quickly, efficiently, and at a very low cost.For example, in the United States, the Judicial Education Reference,Information, and Technical Transfer Project (JERITT), a nationalclearinghouse for information on continuing judicial education forjudges, judicial officers, and court personnel, has a web site with nu-merous resources. 5 Perhaps consideration should be given to creatinga similar site for the Asia/Pacific region. Some organizations fromcountries in the region have already established Internet sites on re-lated subjects 2 By using the ever growing Internet, publications andspeeches presented at seminars and conferences can be made availableto judges who are not otherwise able to attend.53

Another recommended form of electronic media is CD-ROM disc.For instance, Li suggests that bench guides be placed on CD-ROMdiscs for use on a judge's personal computer.54 While his recommen-dation appears to be based on ease of use as compared to a similarguide published in printed form, CD-ROM discs may also be an eco-nomically beneficial way to share both bench guides and other judicialeducation material due to the relatively low cost of making copies ofsuch discs. These various forms of sharing information should be ex-plored to find the most cost efficient method of pooling resources andproviding information to countries with relatively fewer available re-sources.

Even where pooling of resources is not feasible, each nation, re-gardless of size, could look for educational resources that may have

51. See JERITT Home Page, at http://jeritt.msu.edu (last visited Oct. 30, 2000).52. See infra Appendix III (containing selected bibliography of judicial education re-

sources on the Internet).53. For example, the Judicial Conference of Australia has an Internet site providing full

copies of papers presented at various Symposia. See Judicial Conference of Australia, atwww.law.monash.edu.au/JCA (last visited Oct. 30, 2000). Justice J.A. Dowsett's address"Judicial Education," supra note 5, is provided in full at this locale.

One advantage of the Internet as a judicial education repository is that materials can betransmitted in textual format or in audio/visual format or both. For instance, the New MexicoJudicial Education Center website contains judicial education material on judicial ethics thatcan be reviewed either in text or on video. See New Mexico Judicial Education Center, Inter-active Training: Judges Ethics, at http://jec.unm.edu/training/Ethics/home.html (last visitedOct. 30, 2000). If judicial education seminars are taped, they can be digitized and saved on theInternet for later viewing.

54. See Li, supra note 1, at 50.

Michigan Journal of International Law

previously gone unexplored. For example, as I have already discussed,most topics relevant to a judge's proper education are more effectivelytaught by a fellow experienced judge-regardless of formal educationthat the more experienced judge may have previously received. It isimportant not to overlook the experience in the judiciary when lookingfor educators.5

7. Program Evaluation

We are constantly learning new ways to teach and disseminate in-formation. To be fully effective in the future, any judicial educationprogram must be adaptable. The program must have a built-in methodof self evaluation-particularly from the standpoint of the participat-ing judges.56 Leaders must be open to adopting new methods ofteaching and new technologies in presenting and publicizing informa-tion. Cross-fertilization is important: each country must learn from theother's experiences.5 7 It is easier to build on the efforts and groundwork that has been laid in the form of many established programs. Butalways, there must be willingness to evaluate based upon where youwant judicial education to be in the future.

CONCLUSION

As countries establish new judicial education programs, or modifyexisting programs, they should carefully consider where they want tobe in the future and identify the most effective methods of reachingtheir goals. To be fully effective, they must find creative solutions tothe roadblocks that have impeded their progress in the past as theymove to a future of a better trained judiciary. They must take advan-tage of modern technology, but even more important, they must learnto recognize and utilize the resources readily available in each of theircountries-in particular the experience of their own judges. Countriesmust find more efficient methods of sharing information and poolingresources so that they can take advantage of the experience of neigh-boring countries.

In conclusion, I emphasize once again that effective principles ofjudicial education are generic and apply equally to all judicial systems

55. See supra note 27 and accompanying text.56. For general information concerning evaluating judicial education programs, see

ARMYTAGE, supra note 21, at 183-214.57. See Shirley S. Abrahamson, The Consumer and the Courts, 74 JUDICATURE 93, 95

(1990) ("We can learn from the legal systems of other countries."); Li, supra note 1, at 49.

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 865

no matter the size or type of underlying legal system. As countriesadopt the principles discussed above and apply them as appropriate intheir unique circumstance, the result will be better trained judges andan increased quality of justice.

Michigan Journal of International Law

APPENDIX I

SURVEY ON JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING

IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

1. Approximately how many judges are there in your country:

a. at the trial level?

b. at the appellate level?

2. Does your country have a separate organization for trainingof judges?

a. What is it called (e.g., Institute of Judicial Administra-tion, Judicial Training Academy, etc.)?

b. In what city is it located?

c. How is the head of the organization (director) se-lected? What is the criteria used to select a director?What is the director's term of service?

d. Is the director of your country's judicial training centera judge?

e. If the current director is a judge, is the judge a trial orappellate judge?

f. If the current director is not a judge, what is the back-ground and training of the individual who holds thatposition?

g. How large is the non-teaching staff?

h. How many teachers are permanently assigned to theorganization? Of these, how many are:

Judges?Non-Judges?

i. How much is the annual budget?

3. Does your country have a permanent training building?

a. If yes, describe it.

b. If no, what facilities are used for training?

4. Does your country's training facility produce written judi-cial aids?

a. Law summaries?

b. "Bench books"?

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific E

c. Other? (describe)

d. Describe written judicial aids produced by any otherbody.

e. Can copies be made available at the 1999 Conferencein Seoul?

5. Does your country's training facility have:

a. A research library?

b. An audio-visual library?

c. Video, audio, or written copies of prior seminarsgiven?

6. Does your country's training facility have the capacity to doresearch to solve problems confronting the judiciary?

a. If yes, describe.

7. Is there a regular training program for new trial judges ofgeneral jurisdiction?

a. How long?

b. Who teaches it?

c. What subjects are covered?

d. When is it given in relation to the beginning of judicialservice:

before?

within 3 months service?

later?

8. Is there a regular training program for new trial judges of courtslower than those of general jurisdiction?

a. How long?

b. Who teaches it?

c. What subjects are covered?

Michigan Journal of International Law

d. When is it given in relation to the beginning of judicialservice:

before?

within 3 months service?

later?

9. Is there a regular training program for new appellate judges?

a. How long?

b. Wh6 teaches it?

c. What subjects are covered?

d. When is it given in relation to the beginning of judicialservice:

before?

within 3 months service?

later?

10. Is there additional training provided during their career forjudges at all level?

a. Describe for trial judges.

b. Describe for appellate judges.

c. . Are judges used for this training?

(1) What percent of training is done by judges?

(2) Do you use retired judges for training?To what extent?

d. Describe the courses provided.

11. What are your future plans for developing judicial educationand training?

12. Would you favor training for your director, such as inmeetings of all judicial training directors in Asia and the Pa-cific?

13. Who does the judicial training at your country's trainingprograms?

Judges?Law professors?Other (describe)

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 8

a. What criteria is used to select the trainers?

b. Are the trainers taught how to teach? If yes, describehow.

14. Does your country's judicial training center include classesor courses for court staff/court administrators?

a. If the judicial training center does include classes orcourses for court staff:

(1) what is the nature of the training?

(2) how often is it provided?

(3) what is the background of the facultymembers for such training?

Describe any other characteristics of this kind of training.

b. If the judicial training center does not include classesor courses for court staff, when the training center wasestablished and in the planning process, was it evercontemplated that court staff would be included? Arethere plans to expand the judicial training center cur-riculum to include court staff?

15. Outline the courses given in 1997, their length, the numberof judges attending, the subjects given, and the title of theteachers or trainers who made the presentations. (Use an-other page if necessary.)

16. Is your country's judicial training under the courts or theMinistry of Justice?

a. Considering the Beijing Statement on Independence ofthe Judiciary, do you believe it is important to have thecourts in charge of judicial training?

17. Describe how the judicial training organization is governed,i.e., who makes appointments to the organization, and whois ultimately responsible for the training?

Michigan Journal of International Law [Vol. 21:849

0, 0

I--, a._

>,-

2.

z ~=za.D

-oo

cc~)

Z z

IL UR __

o LL C

cc <

0 < __ ____

C>

0 cd

COZ 0 a s

LL CO.z z

wU0.C.

z

U)

=U)

z 01110

cc0

zU

Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific

t5 7200

o co

ZU Co (D 0?'? , O ~O , 0CO

zLt) 2 0 0 0

CLC Xo= 0 v00

0 LU 0 ~ 0 o o

0 LU >- CA -M, M~ -

LU c

LU a0)C 0 .C0

o >-E ! - 8 ?:LCA

z zU

-j

Ca

CA U

LU c

LU - z >

cc LUC. - >

LI.

L > >->- >-

CA -C~ C)

o 4)

00

U0)

i 9L (0 C \Co-T CM

0

z Co

CL CL

Summer 2000]

Michigan Journal of International Law

U) 0C0

)C ( C

0 0

C, a, a) 0

LU E~cc C,) - -,0

I-a-

LU 4 mn o

C0 > o, Caz (D 0,

z z - -o

0 C e- 0

L U < ~z LU0 0 0

0

2 >-I z z z

CL L

C

0 zoL )0 ( z >- z zLUO

L U W- 0 c

o(00D 0 0

z r .

cc I C' ) CD0

0

zz >

W r 0D

CD,

0n CL +'a, CL, (m .- -

CO0

o0oFD --T S, a- 30

z j -Ca CD

__ _ a __ _ _ _ _

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific

-J0 0 C

000

C)

LUL

M 0, L0 o00 = 0,

.0 (D *-C0

0

j 0 0 L2 0 0L

CD w 0 Z @

tc~ -i (

L g CL 0 0 0 00 00z *0 z z 0 0

4 -0 0 0 04~~ 0 CL

cc z z z

0 <0

zj z,x LUCLM 0

0 00

ccz z z z zz- U 0

z zO CO I z IZwoOw z

:M! z z z z z z z z-

0

04

CI) 4 C)

0 2'0L 0 - ' 7a - -

a 0 U)z LI)0

Michigan Journal of International Law

APPENDIX III

SELECTED JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEBSITES

ASIA/PACIFIC AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION INC.

http://www.aija.org.auAustralian Law Reform Commission

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/airc/(contains discussion papers relating to creation of judicialeducation programs)Centre for Judicial Studies

http://www.educatingjudges.com(for-profit judicial education consultancy based in Australia)High Court of Australia

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches.htm(contains speeches of judges relating tojudicial education topics)Judicial Commission of New South Wales

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.auJudicial Conference of Australia

http://www.law.monash.edu.au/JCAMalaysian Legal and Judicial Training Institute

http://spl.pnm.my/-ilkap/Thailand Office of Judicial Affairs

http://www.oja.go.th/NNindex.htmCanada, United States, United Kingdom

Canadian Judicial Councilhttp://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/index.htmCommonwealth Judicial Education Institute

http://is.dal.ca/-cjeiFederal Judicial Center

http://www.fjc.govJudicial Education Reference, Information, and Technical

[Vol. 21:849

Summer 2000] Judicial Education & Training in Asia & the Pacific 875

Transfer Project (JERITT)http://jeritt.msu.edu

http://jeritt.msu.edu/Bulletins%20PDF/bul8 -4%20oct-dec97rev.pdf (contains comprehensive list of judicial educationwebsites in the United States)

Judicial Studies Boardhttp://www.cix.co.uk/-jsb/index.htm

National Judicial Collegehttp://www.judges.org/