Under what conditions do citizens view judges as bribe-taking and corrupt, or, conversely, as irreproachable and honest? How much, moreover, do these raise or lower citizens’ overall levels of trust in judges, specifically, and in the court system, more generally? Analyzing an original survey of 1200 respondents from the Middle East and North Africa completed in January 2015, this paper examines this topic. Specifically, the survey of Moroccan respondents indicates that approximately 76 percent of citizens believe that litigants get judicial decisions ruled in their favor by the paying of bribes to judges. Yet, citizen beliefs about the importance of bribe-taking to getting favorable judicial rulings varied considerably according to the socio-economic and cultural attributes of respondents. In general, citizens with less political sophistication—with less access to information and economic resources—were more likely to view judges as corrupt bribe-takers. These included citizens with low levels of education and wealth, those who lived in poor communities, and those who were of ethnic minority backgrounds. By contrast, citizens with greater political sophistication—especially those working in the business sector—undervalued the influence of bribes on judges’ rulings. Because businessmen and other private sector employees are often targets of bribe solicitation in the developing world, these results are counterintuitive and suggest that citizens’ perceptions of the prevalence of corruption among judges may in fact exceed the empirical reality. This paper concludes by showing how citizen belief in the centrality of bribe-taking to receiving favorable rulings from judges undermines diffuse trust in both judges and the court system, respectively. This finding confirms research from the U.S. context, which suggests that an absence of citizen trust in judges and the courts hinders the effectiveness of the judicial branch.

There is a great degree of variation in application and understanding of Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) across the world—some countries adopt more liberal interpretations, some more conservative ones. However, despite this great variation, it is often reported that state-enforced MFLs negatively affect human rights, particularly those of women and children. In fact, a quick literature review indicates that various aspects of MFLs have long been considered detrimental to human and women’s rights and have been targeted by reformers across the world. Reforms were often introduced through executive orders and legislative actions. But they occasionally resulted from judicial intervention and law making. In some Muslim-majority countries, judiciaries have played a pivotal role in reforming MFLs by creating new or expanding existing categories of rights through reinterpretation of religion-based laws. However, our knowledge is much more limited in respect to the role that civil judiciaries play in regulation and reformation of MFLs in non-Muslim-majority countries. The proposed paper aims to fill this knowledge gap by examining Israeli, Greek civil (high and lower) courts’ engagement with their respective Islamic laws/judiciaries. In doing so, the paper will answer the question of whether, how and under what conditions high and lower civil courts in non-Muslim-majority countries where MFLs are formally incorporated could effect systemic changes in Muslim laws. The study relies primarily on analysis of Israeli and Greek religious and civil court decisions as well as primary data collected by the author through field research and interviews with judges, lawyers, litigants and experts in Israel-proper, and Western Thrace, Greece during multiple field trips between 2004-15.

Morocco’s King Mohammed VI responded almost immediately to the country’s version of the Arab Spring, initiated by the 20th February Movement, and hence effectively denying them their raison d’être. In March 2011 he announced a setting up of a committee in charge of rewriting the constitution and called on citizens and NGOs to help with the process. The draft of the constitution was put to referendum a few months later and won an overwhelming support from the electorate. The constitution, as many other legal and political reforms, got much international attention and the King has been praised for being responsive to his citizens. Some of the important changes introduced were the recognition in Article 5 of Tamazight language as an official language of the Kingdom and article 19 recognizing gender equality. However, both of these stipulations, as well as many others, need organic laws to be translated into practice. Five years on, these stipulations remain an empty shell or continue to be violated by the existing laws. In this paper, I will argue that despite the fact that provisions contained in the current constitution lack implementation, various local women’s rights NGOs nonetheless welcomed the amendments enthusiastically. Based on extensive ethnographic research, involving participant observation and semi-structured interviews with NGO workers in El Hajeb and Khemisset, I will demonstrate how these organizations use the constitution to push for further legal reforms in the realm of Penal, Family, and other Codes dealing with the amelioration of the position of women in Moroccan society, family, and state; how they are able to promote the universal human rights system among people, law enforcement, and politicians without being accused of being ‘Westernized’; and how they are criticizing the Moroccan government for violating human (women’s) rights and holding it accountable at influential international human rights committees. This case study is an important contribution to the political developments of post-Arab Spring countries also offsetting the rather popular ‘after Arab Spring came Arab Winter’ idea. Continuing to focus also on the analysis of elite politics in the region forgets that Arab Spring revolutions were caused and sustained by the populace and grassroots movements. Therefore, many countries in the region may have new constitutions and new governments, but the struggle for genuine change has shifted from the capital to the province.

The Jordanian legal system is divided into religious, regular, and special courts (Article 99, 2011 Jordanian constitution). Regular courts have jurisdiction over all people in regular and criminal matters (Article 102) while family law is adjudicated by religious courts which are divided into sharia courts and courts of other religious communities (Article 104). Thus, Christian communities in Jordan are allowed to operate their own courts and to apply their own family laws. Whereas the Islamic family law has undergone reform in 2001 and in 2010, Christian family law has largely been exempted from this reform dynamic. This is despite the fact that legal practitioners have criticize the lack of accountability of the Christian courts, the missing legal training of Christian judges, outdated legislation, the lack of procedural law, and judicial corruption. The absence of reform of the Christian legal system is therefore not due to a lack of perceived need for reform. This paper investigates in what way the design of the legal system has shaped legal reform and advocacy with respect to Christian family law. It argues that reform of Christian family law as well as the Christian court system has been hampered by several factors. Legal reform tends to be associated with the state which is seen as in charge of reform. However, the design of the Jordanian legal system in Jordan means that the Christian courts enjoy relative autonomy. The family laws that are applied by the Christian courts are non-Jordanian laws that are in most cases applied on the regional level. The state thus has limited means to initiate reform. This has complicated questions of jurisdiction and legal advocacy. It is often unclear to judicial practitioners working in the field who has the authority to reform the Christian family laws which presents a challenge to legal mobilization and advocacy efforts. This paper focuses on the Roman Orthodox community and it’s court since it is the oldest and largest Christian community in Jordan and the court is the most frequented Christian court in the country. Triangulating written and interview sources, this article is based on 22 semi-structured interviews that were conducted in Jordan with judicial practitioners in September 2016 as well as various written sources including laws, draft laws, and rulings from the Orthodox court.