Consistent with the broader institutional makeup of the system, Iran’s deep state is complex and has several components. The velayat-e faqih stands as the central critical core of the Iranian deep state. As such, the leader provides the institutional and doctrinal organizing principles around which the other components of the deep state rally. These include the state’s praetorian guards, namely the IRGC and the Basij, those institutions specifically designed for system maintenance – that is, the Guarding Council, the Expediency Council and the judiciary – and a series of other formal and informal institutions that also ensure the protection of the system’s interests as defined by them, and the continuity of those interests regardless of the changes that may occur through popular elections. These latter set of institutions include the country’s various intelligence agencies, the Qom-centered clerical establishment, the Friday Prayer Imams, the Special Court for the Clergy, and the state radio and television broadcaster – the IRIB. Impervious to outside demands and influences, each of these institutions report only to the velayat-e faqih, operating mostly outside of and independent from the formal institutions and procedures of the state.

Chapter 8 provides an introduction to civil rights in contemporary Latin America. It proposes a definition of civil rights that encompasses four classes of rights: equality rights, liberty rights, security rights, and due process rights. Relying on data about these rights, it characterizes the state of civil rights in Latin America as mixed. The politically powerful have had to answer for past abuses of human rights; and many rights of women, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and LGBTQ+ people have been legally recognized. However, many democracies are corrupt, discriminatory, semi-free, violent, and unjust. This state of affairs is explained in terms of multiple factors. Democracy has served as a stepping stone for some improvement of civil rights, especially when an active civil society has pressed for certain rights. But the impact of democracy is muted because Latin American democracies are not high-quality democracies. Moreover, the judiciary has not been a consistent promoter of civil rights, and the state has also not been capable enough or state agents have not been committed enough to enforce the law uniformly throughout the full territory of a country.

Chapter 10 addresses high-level corruption and the judicial response to those who are known to engage, or are widely suspected of engaging, in acts of corruption in contemporary Latin America. It shows that corruption is a persistent problem and that no sustained gains to counter it have been made. It also shows that the judicial response is, at best, mixed. High-level corruption is systemic, involving a network of powerful politicians, top-level public administrators, and high-level members of the judiciary. The chapter explores the causes of this poor record through an analysis of three cases (Brazil, Mexico, and Guatemala) and draws several conclusions. The weakness of democracy prevents it from reining in corruption. The public administration has largely been a hindrance in the fight against corruption. The judiciary has been part of the solution to the problem of corruption when it has been independent and competent; however, the judiciary is frequently corrupt or politicized and thus part of the problem. Finally, civil society organizations have played a consistently positive role, putting pressure on politicians and the judiciary to fight against corruption.

Chapter 9 focuses on transitional justice, the challenge of tackling past human rights violations, in contemporary Latin America. It shows that the record of Latin American countries varies considerably, but that, in the aggregate, the record of Latin America is largely a success story. The frequency with which past human rights violations have been addressed, and the steps taken through truth commissions and human rights trials, puts Latin America at the center of the global transitional justice movement. It also demonstrates, through a comparative analysis of six countries (Brazil and Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala, Chile and Argentina), that several factors determine the response to past human rights violations. Democracies that are strong and channel citizen preferences succeed in confronting the challenge of transitional justice. Additionally, a strong record of transitional justice is associated with strong civil society organizations, generational change and new legal thinking about human rights law in the judiciary, and progressive developments in international law.

In this chapter, Ulrike Schultz summarises the key themes and ideas of the volume on women judges in the Asia-Pacific, and identifies future directions for the field.

Studies of women in leadership in the Pacific tend to focus on the under-representation of women in the political branches of government. The number and role of women in the judicial branch has received less attention. Male judges outnumber women judges across the region, but the reasons for this, and its implications, have not been the subject of detailed study. Pacific judiciaries share many features with judiciaries in Asia and beyond. However, the context of small, island, developing states shapes the experiences of Pacific women and Pacific judges in distinctive ways. This chapter provides a history and comparative analysis of the appointment of women judges in the Pacific, focusing on the nine independent Commonwealth states of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. It presents empirical data on the composition of the superior courts in these states, including judges’ gender and professional background. It examines how the criteria and processes for judicial appointment – including the distinctive use of foreign judges – affect the appointment of women to the judiciary. Finally, the chapter explores how judging in the Pacific might be gendered by examining high profile cases in which women judges have presided.

Studies of Indonesian Law over the past two decades have been animated by one theme, law reform, and one question, how law reform is used as a tool for social change. The fall of Suharto in 1998 and the demand for democracy and the rule of law led to major efforts at constitutional and political reform, including significant court reform. Indonesia is the third largest democratic country, yet there has been no major study of women either in the legal profession or in the judiciary. Studies of the legal profession have focused on towering male figures and their contributions to advocacy and judicial practice, such as lawyer Adnan Buying Nasution or former Chief Justice Jimly Asshidiqqie. This does not explain the rise of figures likes Maria Farida Indri, Indonesia’s first and only female Constitutional Court judge, nor of the women judges in the Supreme Court, lower courts, advocacy and legal profession. This chapter interrogates to what extent we can speak of the feminisation of the judiciary in Indonesia, both in a thin sense of entrance to the profession and in a thick substantive sense of gender equality. The author considers the wider social and legal context of steps forward and backwards in terms of gender equality in Indonesia, and reviews existing legal scholarship to identify where and how women appear. In the Constitutional Court, the role of the only female judge, Ibu Maria Farida Indri is analysed, and the author argues that she was successful because she was considered to be a ‘model minority judge’. A brief outline of women judges in the Supreme Court and lower courts is also offered, acknowledging that women judges’ may not necessarily be any less corrupt than male judges, nor are they necessarily more sensitive to issues of gender equality. While some women judges like Maria are clearly trailblazers, the paradox is that other women who have entered the judiciary have perpetuated the system of corruption and patriarchy inherent in the courts. The chapter concludes by suggesting that any agenda for research on the feminisation of the legal profession in Indonesia needs to hold in tension both the promise and paradox of women in the judiciary.

Women in the judiciary in the Asia-Pacific are understudied. Building on the comparative literature on women in the judiciary, this chapter considers the extent to which we can identify the feminisation of the judiciary in the Asia-Pacific, past and present. The authors question the meaning of the feminisation of the judiciary across the Asia-Pacific, and how gains have been made on issues of entry into the profession and the more substantive issue of the difference women judges can make. An example of the increase in women judges and advocacy for women’s issues in the profession is the formation and growth of women’s bar associations and women’s judicial associations. We identify that some jurisdictions, such as Indonesia, had female appointments to the highest court well before some jurisdictions of the Global North. But overall, there are still many ‘firsts’ in terms of women’s entry and career progression into various tiers of the judicial profession. We argue that the extent to which we can speak of the feminisation of the judiciary in the Asia-Pacific relates to the wider issues of recognition, equality and non-discrimination for women in society more broadly. The judiciary in the Asia-Pacific, as in much of the Global South, is influenced by religious, traditional and customary values and practices, as well as postcolonial realities of corruption, inequality and violence.

The feminisation of the legal profession has become a policy priority in developed and developing nations. Although an increasing number of female students have chosen to pursue law education in the South Asian nations like Nepal, the state of women representation in the judiciary remains unsatisfactory. For example, less than one-tenth of advocates as well as judges in Nepal are women. Drawing on the construct of motility – the capacity of actors to be mobile in social settings – this chapter asks: 'what insights can be generated from the current status of women in the Nepalese judiciary?’ The chapter adopts an exploratory research approach in order to analyse primary data (six interviews with retired, sitting and aspiring judges) and publicly available secondary data (key policy documents, media reports). The findings reveal three key themes: (a) barriers to enter judiciary (i.e. glass door), (b) challenges in maneuvering the career ladder (i.e. path of broken glass) and (c) the lack of opportunities to occupy key leadership positions (i.e. glass ceiling). Based on the findings, the paper suggests two policy propositions that can be considered to foster women representation in judiciary in developing countries like Nepal.

Malaysia has been on a long and rocky road for women to be appointed to the bench with progress only starting in the last decade. Not that long ago, a NGO Shadow Report commenting on Malaysia’s Report on CEDAW in 2005 described the number of female judge as ‘dismal’ in the civil and Syariah legal system. Women had to overcome significant challenges of being on the bench in the Syariah court system as a national fatwa prohibited women from being appointed as judges. It took over two decades for the National Fatwa Committee to overrule its previous decision allowing women to be appointed as Syariah court judges provided that they met the qualification requirements. In order for the fatwa to take effect in the individual states, it had to be passed by the respective states with some states declaring they would not pass it and other states remaining silent on this issue. Progress was initially very slow and by early 2016, only the five out of thirteen states allowed Muslim women to become Syariah court judges. By mid-2016 history was made when more states came around and women were also appointed to higher Syariah courts.

What does the study of the exercise of judicial discretion by judges reveal about advancing gender through adjudication? In this chapter, the author claims that, in jurisdictions of the Global South, this question cannot be limited to a study of judges or of the exercise of discretion. The focus must extend beyond the study of individual judges and/or their judgments to a study of the system of adjudication, that is to say, the laws, legal institutions and the legal and political culture within which they operate. Nine different emblematic cases involving gender justice that came before Sri Lankan courts are studied. Some of these cases were adjudicated upon by women judges while some were not. The author read the selected jurisprudence from this lens to explain advances and retreats from gender justice in adjudication. She argues that unlike in the Global North, posing the woman question of judges in the Global South, led to misleading answers regarding women’s inclusion and representation in adjudication. The analysis suggests that any link between women judges and gender justice is tenuous. The ways in which the system of adjudication operates, that is the legal institutions, the law and the legal and political culture within which disputes are resolved, better explains the possibilities and limits of gender justice in adjudication.

This chapter looks at the nuances of gender dynamics in the Indian judiciary since independence. The Supreme Court has only eight female judges, or 11 per cent and there has never been a female chief justice of India. The gender gap in the judiciary is therefore complex and its possible impact on the discourse of legal tradition in India. The immobility of women in the highest court of law compels us to relook at hierarchy, representation and the institutional processes involved in the judiciary. The chapter will also look at the idea of gendered objectivity and its interconnectedness with the process of maneuvering gender discourse within the system. The chapter will look at the historical representation of women in the judicial system, followed by a consideration of what gender ‘objectivity’ denotes in the course of judgments. With recent path-breaking judgments pertaining to gender discrimination and equal rights, the third section will highlight the overall impact of women’s representation in the judiciary and the possibilities for change in addressing issues of women.

On 1 October 2018, Ubonrat Luiwikkai became the first woman in Thailand to be appointed to the position of president of the Thai Court of Appeal. The position is the second most senior post within the Thai Courts of Justice hierarchy, and arguably within the Thai career judiciary. The appointment came seventy-eight years after the first Thai woman graduated with a legal degree and fifty-three years after the first Thai woman was admitted as a judge. Hopefully the appointment signals a new era in the opening up of the senior ranks of the Thai judiciary to women. Looking at statistics on women in the judiciary more broadly, however, signs are less promising. This chapter will trace developments which saw courts in Thailand move from prohibiting women from becoming judges to allowing women judges the appointment of Ubonrat. The chapter will look at trends in employment of women in the judiciary in Thailand more broadly, and will consider remaining obstacles to women’s progression in the judiciary.

To what extent, if any, is there a relationship between gender and judicial independence? This is an understudied area, particularly in the context of non-Western democracies. Although the number of women lawyers and judges has increased significantly, they remain a small proportion of the bench in constitutional courts that decide on constitutional and policy-setting cases. Preceded by a vibrant history of advocacy and activism, Filipino women judges have been a strong voice in articulating and advancing judicial independence through various episodes of the country’s turbulent journey through constitutional democracy. In both liberal and illiberal times, many women judges have stood their ground against political influence or pressure. Women judges have become a force in strengthening the administration of justice. This chapter suggests that the appointment of more women judges through a merit-based process should be part of broader strategy towards judicial independence.