· How are judges appointed/elected?

· How and why do the powers of the judiciary differ between states?

· Has there been a 'judicialisation' of politics in recent years?

· To what extent is the judiciary independent of political influence?

Caramani:-

·         The principals i.e. the people who govern a political system, cannot both create laws and also go about enforcing them and resolving disputes under the laws at the same time efficiently and effectively. Therefore, they appoint the latter responsibility to the courts - who in this case can be seen as agents - to enforce the law they make and resolve any disputes.

·         Powers of the judiciary differ between states depending on their zone of discretion. The ordinary judge operating in a system of legislative sovereignty is an agent whose zone is relatively small compared to a trustee court of the constitution. The ordinary judge has delegated powers, but the power of these depend on the control instruments available to her principals - which reduce the agents capacity to control outcomes considerably. Almost all constitutional courts operate in larger zones of discretion than ordinary judges. i.e. Europe, where centralized model of protecting rights is supreme, e.g. Germany and Spain. Depends on whether constitutional court has been delegated abstract and concrete review powers. the authority to process individual complaints and whether they can amend rights provisions.

·         In Gernany especially the constitutional court has one of the largest zones of discretion of any court. Control instruments are extraordinarily weak. The courts decisions on rights are irreversible, except by the court itself. German politics have become highly judicialized as most important political issues make it to the court through one procedure or another, and the court has adopted the posture of an aggressive defender of rights. There have been some fairly recent controversial examples of high judicialized politics around the world e.g. attempt to combat racial and gender discrimination, liberalize and regulate abortion, criminalize 'hate speech', obscenity and pornography. Judicialization of politics is the process through which the influence of courts on legislative and administrative power develops over time.

·         The judiciary has to be relatively independent of political influence, as the courts themselves are an institutional response to the fact that most contracts are incomplete. They act as third-party dispute resolution and enforcement. In type 2 constitutions, however, the judiciary is not as independent from political influence as it should be. For example, if a judge rules in favour of something that the principal did not want, then the principal can merely change the statute to preclude the offending judicial interpretation. This means that the principal still remains in charge, regardless of the judges decision. Principals have more power over the ordinary courts, and can overturn decisions, however, constitutional courts have more power over principals, as in order to overturn a ruling, principals would have to amend the constitution, which is a practical impossibility. Politicians can do influence constitutional and supreme courts through appointments. However, they have shifted the power to control constitutional development away from themselves and to constitutional judges.