Chairs:

• Eduardo Ferrer: Eduardoferrer1821@outlook.com
• Sabrina Ragone: sabrina.ragone2@unibo.it
• Mariola Urrea: Mariola.urrea@unirioja.es
• Rosa Fernández-Riveira: ferrosa@ucm.es

SPEAKERS

Franklin Alejandro	Fuentes Santana
Jalil Alejandro	Magaldi Serna
Juan Sebastián	Villamil Rodríguez
María Sofía	Sagüés
Michael Rolla	Negrete Cárdenas
Susen	Kamble

The 21st century is highlighting that the Judiciary in many countries (of both the Civil Law continental tradition and the Common Law Anglo-Saxon tradition) is facing and leading numerous reforms. It is necessary to enquire into the causes of this global phenomenon. It is important to reflect upon the objectives with which so many new reforms are substantiated.

On the one hand, we observe that judicial reforms are being undertaken in highly diverse scenarios, which requires a broad perspective capable of relating political, social, economic, and cultural contexts to such reforms. Only by utilising a ‘long-range lens’ can the described scenario be studied. Furthermore, this broad analysis should be useful for subsequent reflection on the relationships and connections between judicial reform and democracy.

On the other hand, we must also use a ‘close-up lens’ on each reform model. Moreover, we should be capable of examining and thinking about each concrete piece that actively participates in the reform proposal—and, in a special manner, the specific piece regarding the election of judges. We are conscious that the puzzle of judicial reform is composed of many more pieces: the executive-judicial relationship, the existence (or lack thereof) of a judicial governance body, salaries, the relationship with the media, judicial legitimacy, diversity, responsibility and/or accountability, retirement age, mechanisms of access to the judicial career, professional promotion, mechanisms for appointing judges, disciplinary procedures, the role of judicial associations, the election of members of the judicial governance body, the efficacy of jurisprudence, et cetera.

For many years—probably since the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th—we have articulated the majority of works and reflections on the Judiciary starting from the incontestable premise of judicial independence. Any reform, however distinct, was undertaken whilst hoisting the flag of judicial independence; any new piece in the design of the puzzle—the reformer—was placed for the sake of potentiating judicial independence.

Does this great principle also require an update and a certain redesign? Have we been constructing a concept of judicial independence so broad, lax, and, in a certain sense, ‘bespoke’, that it is no longer properly recognisable? What judges do we need?

The close-up and long-range perspectives we propose regarding the Judiciary and its many reforms could prove to be an optimal working scenario for providing some answers to these complex questions.estas complejas preguntas.hts, Court of Justice of the EU), and broader strategies that reinforce judicial independence as part of regional legal cultures.