Legal Status of Subjects of Public Relations in the Procedural Law of the Future of Azerbaijan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2023.03.25.05Keywords:
Azerbaijan, Procedural law, legal reforms, legal efficiency, transparency, accountability, public relationsAbstract
This paper examines the significant shortcomings in the procedural law of Azerbaijan, focusing on issues of clarity, effectiveness, and reliability. The aim is to identify these deficiencies and propose comprehensive legal reforms. This study employs a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative measures such as survey and document analysis. The sample comprises 50 experts in procedural law and public relations from academia, government, and legal practice. The study's findings reveal pervasive deficiencies in the current procedural law. Specifically, 75% of survey participants report a lack of clarity, 60% identify inefficiency, and 50% note limited accountability. Detailed statistical analysis shows that 45% of respondents view the legal processes as inefficient, 40% perceive the system as lacking transparency, and half rate the accountability mechanisms as weak or very weak. Descriptive statistics indicate a mean score of 3.0 for legal efficiency, 2.9 for legal transparency, and 2.8 for legal accountability, with substantial variability among responses. Correlation analysis highlights strong positive relationships between legal efficiency and transparency (r=0.65), and between perceived fairness and accountability (r=0.72). Factor analysis further identifies two main factors: overall perception of legal system quality and satisfaction with reforms and fairness. A comparison with other jurisdictions highlights the potential benefits of implementing electronic case management systems, specialized courts, and stringent accountability requirements. These measures have been shown to significantly enhance the efficiency and transparency of legal systems in other countries. This study provides a foundation for potential policy design and legal reforms that Azerbaijan might undertake. By learning from international examples and addressing identified shortcomings, Azerbaijan can improve the functioning of its procedural law system. The insights gained are crucial for policymakers and practitioners aiming to develop a more effective and fair legal system.
References
Agyenim-Boateng, C., & Oduro-Boateng, K. (2019). Accounting for disasters: Evidence of under-representation of victims in the accountability process. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 9(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-04-2017-0048
Ahmed, R. K., Muhammed, K. H., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2021). Impact of e-court systems implementation: A case study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(1), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2020-0008
Amir, N., & Alberstein, M. (2022). Designing Responsive Legal Systems: A Comparative Study. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 22, 263–320. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1503&context=drlj
Androniceanu, A. (2021). Transparency in public administration as a challenge for a good democratic governance. Revista Administratie si Management Public, (36), 149–164. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=964121
Baimenov, A., & Janenova, S. (2019). The emergence of a new model? Trajectories of civil service development in the former Soviet Union countries. In A. Baimenov & P. Liverakos (Eds.), Public Service Excellence in the 21st Century (pp. 105–143). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3215-9_4
Bandes, S. A., & Feigenson, N. (2020). Virtual trials: Necessity, invention, and the evolution of the courtroom. Buffalo Law Review, 68(5), 1275–1352. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol68/iss5/1/
Bashirov, G. (2021). New extractivism and failed development in Azerbaijan. Third World Quarterly, 42(8), 1829–1848. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1926968
Bellin, J. (2020). Theories of prosecution. California Law Review, 108(4), 1203–1253. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26977935
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework 1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Bravo-Hurtado, P., & van Rhee, C. H. (2021). Supreme courts under pressure: Controlling caseload in the administration of civil justice. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63731-6
Chakim, M. L. (2019). A Comparative Perspective on Constitutional Complaint: Discussing Models, Procedures, and Decisions. Constitutional Review, 5(1), 96–133. https://cr.mkri.id/index.php/const-rev/article/view/514
Chua, L. J., & Engel, D. M. (2019). Legal consciousness reconsidered. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042717
Condlin, R. J. (2019). ADR: Disputing with a modern face, or bargaining for the bargaining impaired?. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 291–328. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2634&context=fac_pubs
De Mares, K. C., & Caro-Vargas, S. (2022). The emergence of Azerbaijan as a regional power: Between tensions and neutrality. In J. Delgado-Caicedo (Ed.), Handbook of Regional Conflict Resolution Initiatives in the Global South (pp. 147–170). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003287018
Engin, Z., & Treleaven, P. (2019). Algorithmic government: Automating public services and supporting civil servants in using data science technologies. The Computer Journal, 62(3), 448–460. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8852885
Engstrom, D. F. (2021). Digital civil procedure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169, 2243–2289. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9752&context=penn_law_review
Engstrom, D. F., & Ho, D. E. (2020). Algorithmic accountability in the administrative state. Yale Journal on Regulation, 37, 800–854. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/8311
Erdem Türkelli, G. (2020). The best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds? Multilateral development banks, immunities and accountability to rights-holders. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12(2), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1
Erkkilä, T. (2020). Transparency in public administration. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1404
Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in digital era: Concept, practice, and development. International journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 10(2), 1–22. https://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/e-government_in_digital_era.pdf
Fessinger, M., Hazen, K., Bahm, J., Cole-Mossman, J., Heideman, R., & Brank, E. (2020). Mandatory, fast, and fair: Case outcomes and procedural justice in a family drug court. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09361-6
Garoupa, N., & Magalhaes, P. C. (2020). Public trust in the European legal systems: Independence, accountability and awareness. West European Politics, 44(3), 690–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1715605
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Pardo, T. A. (2020). Beyond transparency, participation, and collaboration? A reflection on the dimensions of open government. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1734726
Goldbach, T. S. (2019). Why legal transplants?. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042617
Guliyev, F. (2019). Discursive closure: Political parties and the (IR) relevance of ideology in Azerbaijan. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 19(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2018.1556417
Hambly, J., & Gill, N. (2020). Law and speed: Asylum appeals and the techniques and consequences of legal quickening. Journal of law and society, 47(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12220
Han, Y. (2020). The impact of accountability deficit on agency performance: Performance-accountability regime. Public Management Review, 22(6), 927–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679237
Hongdao, Q., Bibi, S., Khan, A., Ardito, L., & Khaskheli, M. B. (2019). Legal technologies in action: The future of the legal market in light of disruptive innovations. Sustainability, 11(4), Article 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041015
Horton, D. (2022). Forced remote arbitration. Cornell Law Review, 108, 137–204. https://www.cornelllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2885.pdf
Huchhanavar, S. S. (2020). Regulatory mechanisms combating judicial corruption and misconduct in India: A critical analysis. Indian Law Review, 4(1), 47–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2020.1711498
Huseynov, R., & Abbasova, F. (2021). Azerbaijan. In I. Earner & A. Telitsyna (Eds.), The Development of Child Protection Systems in the Post-Soviet States (pp. 13–27). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59588-3_2
Jia, M. (2020). Illiberal law in American Courts. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1685–1744. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45467497
Jin, Y., & Amaral-Garcia, S. (2019). Enhancing judicial efficiency to foster economic activity in Portugal (Working papers No. 1567). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151973
Keene, A. R., Kane, N. B., Kim, S. Y., & Owen, G. S. (2019). Taking capacity seriously? Ten years of mental capacity disputes before England's Court of Protection. International journal of law and psychiatry, 62, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.11.005
Khalilov, N. (2022). Codification of civil law in Azerbaijan: History, current situation and development perspectives. Journal on European History of Law, 13(1), 185–194. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1046019
Kirby, N. (2021). An ‘institution-first’ conception of public integrity. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000006X
Lee, S., Tan, K. Y., & Lee, H. E. (2022). Asian state practice in the domestic implementation of international law. The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law, 10(1), 1–65. https://brill.com/view/journals/kjic/10/1/article-p1_1.xml
Legg, M. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic, the courts and online hearings: Maintaining open justice, procedural fairness and impartiality. Federal Law Review, 49(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X21993139
Lynch, W. P. (2019). Why settle for less: Improving settlement conferences in Federal Court. Washington Law Review, 94(3), 1233–1280. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol94/iss3/7/
Macaulay, S. (2020). The new versus the old legal realism: “Things ain’t what they used to be”. In D. Campbell (Ed.), Stewart Macaulay: Selected Works (pp. 495–529). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33930-2_19
Madsen, C. Ø., Lindgren, I., & Melin, U. (2022). The accidental caseworker–How digital self-service influences citizens' administrative burden. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), Article 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101653
Mammadov, R. (2021). Political activist, citizen’s helper, and entertainer: A study of professional role perception of journalists in Azerbaijan. Journalism Practice, 15(7), 911–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1758189
Marien, S., & Werner, H. (2019). Fair treatment, fair play? The relationship between fair treatment perceptions, political trust and compliant and cooperative attitudes cross‐nationally. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12271
Masood, A., & Azfar Nisar, M. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa031
Melenko, O. (2020). Mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution: Comparative-legal analysis. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 7(2), 46–63. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=956631
Mouttotos, N. (2020). Reform of civil procedure in Cyprus: Delivering justice in a more efficient and timely way. Common Law World Review, 49(2), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795209244
Munro, L. B., & Riel, N. M. (2020). Our virtual reality. Family Law Quarterly, 54(3), 245–267. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27182025
Neudert, R., Theesfeld, I., Didebulidze, A., Allahverdiyeva, N., & Beckmann, V. (2020). Understanding causes of conflict over common village pastures–A comparative analysis of property rights in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Society & Natural Resources, 33(3), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1704329
Nair, B., Janenova, S., & Serikbayeva, B. (2019). A primer on policy communication in Kazakhstan. Palgrave Pivot Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0610-9
Ng, M. Y. (2020). Judicial exclusivity in actions against public authorities: civil procedure rule, O’Reilly and human rights. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(5), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-07-2017-0164
Nolan-Haley, J. (2020). International dispute resolution and access to justice: Comparative law perspectives. Journal Of Dispute Resolution, 2020(2), 391–412. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2020/iss2/11/
O'Brien, T. C., & Tyler, T. R. (2019). Rebuilding trust between police & communities through procedural justice & reconciliation. Behavioral Science & Policy, 5(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151900500104
O’Connor, K., Knox, C., & Janenova, S. (2021). Bureaucrats, authoritarianism, and role conceptions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(2), 358–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19888009
Okunogbe, O., & Pouliquen, V. (2022). Technology, taxation, and corruption: evidence from the introduction of electronic tax filing. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 341–372. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20200123
Pashayeva, D. (2019). Directions for improving the tax administration and tax control under modern conditions in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Izvestiya Journal of Varna University of Economics, 63(4), 344–359. https://journal.ue-varna.bg/uploads/20200306074612_16429607745e61ffc43d8e4.pdf
Payne, D. M., Corey, C., Raiborn, C., & Zingoni, M. (2020). An applied code of ethics model for decision-making in the accounting profession. Management Research Review, 43(9), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2018-0380
Puddister, K., & Small, T. A. (2019). Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Canadian Public Administration, 62(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12323
Rainey, D. (2022). Integrating technology into your dispute resolution practice: making friends with the fourth party. The Hague: Koninklijke Boom uitgevers. http://digital.casalini.it/9789400111745
Re, R. M. (2019). Clarity doctrines. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(6), 1497–1562. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26778986
Reneman, M., & Stronks, M. (2021). What are they waiting for? The use of acceleration and deceleration in asylum procedures by the Dutch Government. Time & Society, 30(3), 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X211006053
Ruano‐Chamorro, C., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. E. (2022). Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Conservation Letters, 15(3), Article e12861. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12861
Sardarova, S. (2020). Current situation and comparative analysis of social policy in Azerbaijan. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 4, 488–496.
Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Expanding access to remedies through e-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67(1), 89–163. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol67/iss1/3/
Shah, S. S., Jalil, A., & Shah, S. A. H. (2020). Growth effects of religion dependent social capital: An empirical evidence. Social Indicators Research, 149(2), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02253-2
Shahbazov, I., & Muradov, E. (2019). Excessive use of pre-trial detention in Azerbaijan: Examination of the causes. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 57, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.01.001
Shlom, A. (2020). Moving towards an impartial judiciary: Recommendations to prevent and discipline judicial bias. Widener Commonwealth Law Review, 29, 135. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wjpl29&div=9&id=&page=
Sourdin, T., Li, B., & McNamara, D. M. (2020). Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis. Health Policy and Technology, 9(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.020
Thijs, N., Mackie, I., & Krievins, M. (2022). Service design and delivery in the European Neighbourhood Policy East region: A comparative report on designing and delivering administrative services in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine (SIGMA papers No. 64). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c6debcce-en
van Gils, E. (2019). Azerbaijan and the European Union. Routledge.
Vanderhill, R., Joireman, S. F., & Tulepbayeva, R. (2019). Do economic linkages through FDI lead to institutional change? Assessing outcomes in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan. Europe-Asia Studies, 71(4), 648–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1597019
Whalen, R. (2022). Defining legal technology and its implications. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 30(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac005
Williams, G. (2020). Taking responsibility for negligence and non-negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 14(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-019-09506-8
Yavuz, N., Karkin, N., & Yildiz, M. (2022). E-Justice: A review and agenda for future research. In Y. Charalabidis, L. S. Flak, & G. Viale Pereira (Eds.), Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation (pp. 385–414). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92945-9_15
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
