Executive-Judiciary Relations in Bangladesh
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11068444 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nizam Ahmed (0009-0006-0241-4866, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 103-122 |
| Publication date | 2006-05-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Asian Affairs An American Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0092-7678 • E-ISSN: 1940-1590 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.3200/aafs.33.2.103-122 |
| OpenAlex | W2033435642 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 1 |
One of the important problems confronting the modern state is to identify the way(s) to balance the relations between different branches of government. Everywhere the executive has become interventionist, assuming responsibilities for functions traditionally considered to be the preserve of other branches. This intrusion is more noticeable in lawmaking than in the judicial process. It is not uncommon to find a legislature, especially in Westminster systems, accepting the domination of the executive government as natural. But the judiciary does not always accept attempts by the executive to intrude into its domain cap-in-hand. Experience shows that the judiciary not only seeks to provide some kind of deterrent against the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive; it may also issue directives suo moto, requiring the executive to undertake things that it does not want to do. The extent to which the tendency of the executive to dominate the judiciary and the attempt by the latter to assert its independence clashes with each other is difficult to ascertain
Balance (ability · Executive power · Government (linguistics · Independence (probability theory · Law and economics · Lawmaking · Legislature · Natural (archaeology · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Separation of powers · Sociology · Bangladesh Politics, Society, and Development · Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.13 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2010 - 2019 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |