2.8 - Judicial Systems
Judiciaries interpret and apply laws, resolve disputes, and in some systems check the other branches of government. Their structure, independence, and actual function vary enormously across regime types.
China: Rule BY Law, Not Rule OF Law
China's judicial system serves the Communist Party rather than functioning as an independent check on power.
There's an important distinction here. Rule of law means the government itself is bound by law, laws constrain those in power, and independent courts enforce those legal limits. Rule by law means the government uses law as a tool to control society, laws bind citizens but not necessarily the regime, and courts just implement party directives. China operates under rule by law: law is an instrument of party control, courts enforce party decisions, there's no independent judicial check on party power, and law serves the regime rather than some universal notion of justice.
The judiciary is subservient to Communist Party decisions in practice. Party committees inside courts guide decisions, judges are party members, major cases require party approval, and courts simply can't rule against party interests. The party controls judicial appointments too: Supreme People's Court judges are approved by the party-controlled NPC, and lower court judges go through party-influenced selection, with loyalty prioritized over legal expertise. Courts implement party policy through legal proceedings, prosecute party-designated targets, resolve non-political disputes, and maintain social control.
During Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaigns, courts convicted thousands of officials designated by party leadership, with outcomes essentially predetermined rather than independently evaluated, and a conviction rate over 99%. Courts also can't rule on politically sensitive issues like Uyghur detention in Xinjiang or Hong Kong's autonomy, since those are party decisions the judiciary has to support rather than question, and any lawyer who challenges party policy risks disbarment or imprisonment. There's no judicial review either: the NPC Standing Committee interprets the constitution, not the courts, and the party controls the NPC anyway.
Iran: Religious Law Foundation
Iran's judiciary exists to ensure the legal system runs on Islamic Sharia law, making it fundamentally religious rather than secular. All laws must conform to Islamic principles, judges must be trained in Islamic law, legal training includes religious education, and senior positions often require a clerical background. Religious law takes precedence over secular law, and there's no separation between religion and the judicial system at all.
The Head of the Judiciary is appointed by the Supreme Leader for five-year terms, must be a mujtahid (a high-ranking Shia cleric), and oversees the entire judicial system with significant political power. This head of judiciary also nominates half of the Guardian Council (six legal experts), who need Majles approval, linking the judiciary, Guardian Council, and Supreme Leader together. Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani served as Chief Justice from 2009 to 2019, appointed by Khamenei, and exercised authority over all courts while also playing a political role through his Guardian Council nominations.
As of 2026, the head of the judiciary is Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei. Ali Khamenei first appointed him in 2021 (replacing Ebrahim Raisi, who left the judiciary to become president), and Mojtaba Khamenei reappointed him to a second five-year term in July 2026.
The judiciary enforces Islamic law, tries political dissidents and protesters, oversees the Special Clerical Court for clerics, and implements revolutionary justice. After the 2009 Green Movement protests, the judiciary prosecuted thousands of demonstrators in mass trials, sentencing many to prison, execution, or harsh punishment on charges like "waging war against God," clearly showing its role in regime protection through a religious legal framework. The Iranian judiciary is independent from the elected government (president and Majles) but subordinate to the Supreme Leader and committed to Islamic law, so it can check elected officials who threaten religious principles, but it can't check the Supreme Leader or the religious establishment itself.
Mexico: Transitioning Toward Independence
Mexico's judiciary has moved from executive dominance toward greater independence, though real challenges remain. Its Supreme Court has judicial review power, meaning it can declare laws unconstitutional, review federal and state legislation, and interpret the constitution, putting Mexico among systems where courts can genuinely limit the other branches.
Constitutional amendments over the years were meant to make the system more independent and effective. The biggest was the 1994 reform, which rebuilt the Supreme Court with 11 justices, gave it new tools to strike down laws (actions of unconstitutionality and constitutional controversies), created a council to manage and discipline federal judges, and set up a career judicial service. A 2011 reform also strengthened the amparo, the lawsuit citizens use to protect their constitutional rights. Still, Mexico's judiciary only gradually developed real independence after decades of PRI dominance when courts largely deferred to the executive.
Under the system the CED describes, which lasted until 2025, Supreme Court magistrates (11 members) were nominated by the president and approved by the Senate for a term of 15 years: the president sent the Senate a list of three candidates, and senators picked one by a two-thirds vote. The long terms gave some independence from political pressure, though presidents could still shape the court through appointments, and the two-thirds threshold required broad consensus. The Court grew more willing to check the president: in 2023 it struck down AMLO's move to put the National Guard under military control, and it ruled against parts of his energy policy, rulings he attacked publicly. Still, corruption persists in lower courts, cartel influence through intimidation and bribery is a real problem, and some judges have even been assassinated or forced to rule favorably to cartels, undermining rule of law.
What changed (as of 2026): AMLO and Morena responded with the 2024 judicial reform, a constitutional amendment passed in September 2024. It cut the Supreme Court from 11 justices to 9 and made federal judges, including the justices, elected by popular vote (about half were elected in 2025 and the rest are due in 2027). Committees from the executive, Congress, and the judiciary screen the candidates, and justices now serve a single 12-year term. A second amendment in October 2024 (called "constitutional supremacy") barred courts from hearing challenges to constitutional amendments, so the Court can still strike down ordinary laws but can't review changes to the constitution itself. The first judicial election was held on June 1, 2025, with turnout of only about 13%, and the new court took office on September 1, 2025, led by Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, a Mixtec Indigenous lawyer. The old judicial council was replaced by an elected Judicial Discipline Tribunal that can suspend or remove judges. Supporters say elections make judges answer to voters and will help fight corruption; critics, including opposition parties and many judges and legal scholars, say the winners were mostly candidates close to Morena and that the reform weakened judicial independence.
Nigeria: Rebuilding Judicial Legitimacy
Nigeria's judiciary works to establish independence and legitimacy after years of military rule, while also accommodating religious legal pluralism. Its Supreme Court has judicial review power, can declare federal and state laws unconstitutional, interprets the constitution, and resolves disputes between government levels. Since the Fourth Republic began in 1999, Nigeria has worked to reduce corruption in courts, establish independence from the executive, professionalize the judiciary, and restore public confidence, though corruption remains a significant problem and executive pressure and resource constraints still limit effectiveness. High-profile corruption cases have sometimes resulted in acquittals despite strong evidence, and former governors accused of massive theft have sometimes escaped conviction, undermining confidence in the courts.
Nigeria also has Sharia courts established in northern states under its federal system, applying Islamic law to personal status issues like marriage, divorce, and inheritance for Muslims who consent to them, alongside criminal Sharia courts in some states, running parallel to the civil court system. Zamfara State became the first to implement Sharia criminal law in 2000, and subsequent convictions involving amputation and stoning (though rarely carried out) created national controversy over reconciling religious law with constitutional protections. Nigeria effectively has multiple judicial systems operating at once, federal and state civil courts, customary law courts, and Sharia courts, which creates real complexity and potential jurisdictional conflicts.
Supreme Court judges are recommended by the National Judicial Council, which provides professional screening, then appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This shared process reduces purely political appointments; Buhari's nominations faced Senate scrutiny over qualifications and regional balance, and the confirmation requirement keeps presidents from unilaterally packing the courts, even though partisan considerations still play a role.
Russia: Judicial System as Political Tool
Russia's courts nominally have independence and judicial review, but they function mostly as instruments of executive power. The government uses the judicial system against opposition, prosecuting dissidents on pretextual charges, trying and imprisoning protesters, and targeting NGOs and activists, with courts essentially rubber-stamping prosecutions of regime critics through show trials with predetermined outcomes. Alexei Navalny, the prominent opposition leader, faced multiple prosecutions widely seen as politically motivated, resulting in long prison sentences, and the Pussy Riot punk band was prosecuted for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" after a 2012 protest performance, both examples of courts serving as tools to eliminate political opposition rather than acting as independent arbiters.
Navalny died in February 2024 in an Arctic prison colony, where he was serving a 19-year sentence on extremism charges.
Constitutionally, the Constitutional Court has judicial review power and could theoretically check other branches, but in reality it's never struck down a major presidential initiative or ruled against core government interests, consistently upholding controversial laws that restrict protests or expand presidential power. Judges understand their careers depend on staying in the regime's good graces, so courts implement political directives rather than developing any tradition of resisting pressure. Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Federation Council, which United Russia dominates, guaranteeing a compliant judiciary with no independent screening. Russia has enacted some reforms claiming to increase independence, like jury trials in some cases, longer terms, and higher salaries, but these haven't produced a genuinely independent judiciary in practice.
The 2020 constitutional amendments tightened control further: the Constitutional Court was cut from 19 judges to 11, and the Federation Council can now remove Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges when the president proposes it. The Constitutional Court also approved the 2020 amendments, including the reset of Putin's term count, just days after they passed.
United Kingdom: Common Law and Rule of Law
The UK's judicial system embodies real rule of law traditions, with courts serving as genuine checks on government power. The UK uses common law, meaning law develops through judicial decisions and precedent (previous cases bind future ones), with judges interpreting and applying legal principles flexibly case by case. This contrasts with civil law systems like Mexico, China, and Russia, which rely on comprehensive legal codes instead.
Courts enforce rule of law here: government must follow the law, no one is above it, legal procedures protect rights, and an independent judiciary checks government power, a sharp contrast to China's rule by law, where law serves the regime rather than constraining it.
The UK Supreme Court, established in 2009 to replace the Law Lords in the House of Lords, serves as the final court of appeals, interprets the Human Rights Act (1998) which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights to protect civil liberties, and rules on devolution disputes between Westminster and the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson's 2019 prorogation (suspension) of Parliament was unlawful, checking executive power by preventing the PM from shutting down Parliament to avoid scrutiny during Brexit debates, a clear demonstration of judicial willingness to limit executive authority.
Even so, UK courts can't strike down an Act of Parliament, because of parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament is the highest legal authority. Under the Human Rights Act, judges can only issue a declaration of incompatibility, which tells Parliament a law conflicts with protected rights and leaves the fix to Parliament. What courts can do is rule that the government acted unlawfully. In 2023 the Supreme Court ruled the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, and Parliament answered with the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, which declared Rwanda safe by law (the plan was scrapped after Labour won the 2024 election). On devolution, the Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament can't hold an independence referendum without Westminster's consent, because the union is a matter reserved to Westminster.
UK judges are appointed through an independent Judicial Appointments Commission that assesses qualifications on merit, with the Prime Minister formally recommending appointees to the monarch, who appoints them ceremonially and can't refuse. For the Supreme Court specifically, a special selection commission nominates candidates, and the Lord Chancellor can only reject nominees on very limited grounds, making it a highly independent process based on legal excellence rather than political connections.
Comparing Judicial Independence
High independence: the UK (independent appointments, rule of law tradition, real willingness to check government). Mexico was moving into this group (judicial review power, long terms, a court willing to rule against AMLO), but as of 2026 its place is contested: supporters of the 2024 judicial reform say elected judges are more accountable, while critics say the new court is much closer to the ruling party and less independent.
Moderate independence: Nigeria, which has constitutional independence undermined by corruption, resource constraints, occasional executive pressure, and complications from its parallel Sharia system.
Low independence: Iran (independent from elected officials but subordinate to the Supreme Leader and serving the religious regime), Russia (nominally independent but actually serving the executive and targeting opposition), and China (completely subservient to the Communist Party, with no independence and rule by law rather than rule of law).
Judicial review exists in Mexico, Nigeria, and the UK (in limited form), exists on paper but goes unused in Russia, and is absent or very limited in China and Iran. Appointment methods range from independent commissions (UK) to pure executive control (China, Russia) to religious appointment (Iran). The UK, Mexico, and Nigeria aspire to rule of law, China explicitly practices rule by law, and Russia and Iran fall somewhere in between. In democratic systems, courts check power and protect rights; in authoritarian systems, courts implement regime directives and target opposition. Judicial independence correlates closely with regime type: democracies need independent courts to function, while authoritarian regimes subordinate the judiciary to regime control.