Vol. 15 No.5 (May 2005), pp.386-388

GLOBAL JUSTICE REFORM: A COMPARATIVE METHODOLOGY, by Hiram E. Chodosh. New York: New York University Press, 2005. 240pp. Cloth.  $45.00.  ISBN: 0-8147-1935-0.

Reviewed by Roger Handberg, Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida.  Email: handberg@mail.ucf.edu .

GLOBAL JUSTICE REFORM is an interesting book by Hiram Chodosh that essentially consists of two distinct parts: an opening theoretical and methodological presentation of the comparative analysis (Chapters 1-3) followed by a second section (Chapters 4-6) of specific applications at the descriptive level of courts in Indonesia and India. The early part is heavy going but also interesting in that Chodosh’s critiques, of the efforts of others conducting comparative analysis of courts and law, force one to think about questions usually not considered that deeply. In addition, the bibliography and footnotes provide a ready introduction to significant parts of the international judicial reform literature. In the Introduction, Chodosh provides what he describes as a general road map to the problem as he defines it. His analysis in Chapter 2 focuses on the idea that the comparative method has not been well done with regards to courts and law, because most legal scholars have not thought through the concepts underlying comparative analysis but rather conduct what he defines as a superficial level of assessment. For example, Chodosh characterizes comparative law as a field with little actual comparison; rather the focus is usually on the foreign law itself with all its implicit strangeness, especially relative to whatever national law with which the researcher is personally most familiar.

By Chapter 3, Chodosh enters into the process of “comparing comparisons,” and his efforts concentrate on evaluating such analyses from three perspectives—purpose, context and mode of differentiation. Among the important purposes identified is the ability to better view one’s own society, law and culture in the light of others. This purpose represents a traditional value put forth as justification for conducting comparative analyses of other legal systems, but one in which the actual comparisons are often implicit rather than explicit since that vagueness eases the task of analysis. That explains why many analyses are essentially descriptive rather than theoretical. Otherwise, the analyses occur at such a level of abstraction that almost any comparison can be sustained. This latter situation is fortunately becoming less common as scholars become more immersed in the courts and law of other societies (including being conversant with the national language) and establish solid research linkages with native scholars in various states. Comparative politics as a field traditionally neglected courts as political irrelevancies, a pattern that is changing, bringing more comparatively trained scholars into the field. Ironically, a few international scholars are now conducting serious research into the wilds of American courts and law, a process of intellectual cross-fertilization that opens up new vistas in [*387] understanding American phenomena.  Remember, Tocqueville added much to the American understanding of itself. By the end of Chapter 3, Chodosh has homed in on the process of judicial reform – a process to which he adds some cautions and suggestions for how to operate in the future.

Chapter 4 opens the more empirical portion of the book by providing examples of questions that need to be asked when court reforms are proposed. In this discussion, the author makes some non-obvious observations about the consequences of judicial reform, one thought being that as courts become more important, for example by actually enforcing the law, the efforts by others to corrupt and debilitate those courts will grow in intensity. As a consequence, reforms may fail due to this heightened visibility – creating fear among those benefiting from existing arrangements. His sketchy empirical examples are drawn from Indonesia and India – the latter is interesting because Chodosh presents a slightly different perspective on India’s legal challenges than typically is reported. This reflects differences in individual researcher agendas.

In Chapter 5, Chodosh pursues the problems inherent in comparative analysis of court reform. One of the most important issues is the value disconnect that often occurs between domestic and international political realities, including divergent political agendas. Much of the literature in comparative courts consists of evaluations (formally or otherwise) of various reforms sponsored and funded by international actors. In same cases, the international actor, including the World Bank and USAID, have provided substantial funding and subsequently seek validation of their efforts. Other evaluation efforts arose out of scholarly interest in the general questions inherent in the study of comparative courts and law. In both cases, the intent is to discover “successes” and then encourage other failing judicial systems to consider implementing such reforms. Since World War II, western states and international financial institutions have fostered at least three distinct waves of court reform. Many western scholars have researched such reform efforts, but their impact has often been less impressive than the academic hype about the reforms. 

Chodosh’s agenda, in part, appears to be one of laying the foundation for conducting truly useful comparative analyses of judicial reform – finding specific reforms that, with suitable cultural modifications, might in fact be useful elsewhere. This is an admirable goal and one that has been attempted by others. What provides more support for his efforts is in fact the first half of the book: the methodological critique of the field. Researchers interested in assessing court reforms (whether in the US or elsewhere) need to be more forthright in considering the comparative process and how their research answers the questions raised by Chodosh in this book. Many scholars of earlier generations fled to judicial politics and law as a refuge from formal methodology, which they associated with numbers. The reality is that the field increasingly demands a more serious concern with the concepts underlying sound methodology. Chodosh’s volume represents a serious effort to strengthen the methodological foundations of comparative judicial politics. For that reason, it is a work that needs to be read by scholars and [*388] graduate students especially interested in the field. Methodology is not merely numbers, but rather involves conducting systemic and empirically grounded research. Comparative judicial types have nothing to lose but their methodological blinders.

*************************************************

© Copyright 2005 by the author, Roger Handberg.