A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as 'their tribunal'. Many governmental bodies that are titled 'tribunals' are so described to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many (but not all) cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial (or quasi-judicial) body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, to which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled 'tribunals'. However, the word tribunal is not conclusive of a body's function–for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.
The term is derived from the tribunes, magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic. "Tribunal" originally referred to the office of the tribunes, and the term is still sometimes used in this sense in historical writings.
Republic of IrelandEdit
In the Republic of Ireland, tribunal popularly refers to a public inquiry established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The main difference between a Parliamentary Inquiry (non statutory) and a Tribunal of Inquiry in Ireland is that non-statutory inquiries are not vested with the powers, privileges, and rights of the High Court. Tribunals of Inquiry are. Tribunals are established by resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas to enquire into matters of urgent public importance. It is not a function of Tribunals to administer justice, their work is solely inquisitorial. Tribunals are obliged to report their findings to the Oireachtas. They have the power to enforce the attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents relevant to the work in hand. Tribunals can consist of one or more people. A layperson, or non-lawyer, may be the Sole member of a tribunal.
The tribunal system of the United Kingdom is part of the national system of administrative justice. Though it has grown up on an ad hoc basis since the beginning of the twentieth century, from 2007 reforms were put in place to build a unified system with recognised judicial authority, routes of appeal and regulatory supervision.
Historically in the Netherlands, before the separation of lawmaking, law enforcement, and justice duties, all sentences were delivered by a tribunal of seven schepenen or magistrates, appointed by the local count. Such a tribunal was called a Vierschaar, so called for a rope -or cord - that was drawn (schaar or scheren) In a four-square dimension, wherein the judges took place on four benches. These benches were positioned in a square as well with the defendant standing in the middle. Towns had the Vierschaar privilege to hear their own disputes. The Vierschaar was usually located in the town hall, and many historic town halls still have such a room, usually decorated with scenes from the Judgment of Solomon.
There are tribunals for settling various administrative and tax-related disputes, including Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), among others.
In several states, Food Safety Appellate Tribunals have been created to hear appeals against orders of adjudicating officers for food safety (additional deputy commissioners).
The following tribunals exist within the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China: Lands, Small Claims, Labour, Obscene Articles. For public inquiries, commissions are set up instead, under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance.
Roman Catholic ChurchEdit
In Australia, the term tribunal generally implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, with a simplified legal procedure, often presided over by a lawyer (solicitor or barrister) who is not a judge or magistrate (often referred to as a member of the tribunal). In many cases the lawyers who function as tribunal members do so only on a part time basis, and spend the greater part of their time carrying out other aspects of legal practice, such as representing clients. In many cases, the formal rules of evidence which apply in courts do not apply in tribunals, which enables tribunals to hear forms of evidence which courts may not be allowed to consider. Tribunals generally deal with simpler matters; while legal representation is permitted and not uncommon, self-representation is much more common in tribunals than in courts, and tribunal members and registry staff are generally more accustomed to dealing with self-represented parties than courts are. Appeal from a tribunal is to a court.
Tribunals in the Australian judicial system include:
- Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
- Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)
- New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)
- Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)
- State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT)
- Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
- South Australian Civil and Administration Tribunal (SACAT)
In several Australian states, tribunals function as the equivalent of a small claims court.
"Tribunal" is used in the U.S. generally to refer to courts or judicial bodies, as in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, for instance, define "tribunal" as "a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration, or a legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity."
In Bangladesh, tribunal refers to a court that serves some special purpose—of which Bangladesh have several. These have been set up to ensure speedy trial and reduce case congestion in the normal courts. Beside this, Article 117 of the Constitution Of The People's Republic of Bangladesh empowers the parliament to set up one or more administrative tribunals. No court can entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of such tribunal.
In health sectorEdit
Tribunals also play an integral role in health sectors both within and across nations. Often referred to as "adjunctive tribunals", these quasi-judicial bodies possess regulatory, oversight, and dispute resolution powers to aid in health decision-making and governance. At the same time, the actual effects of adjunctive tribunals on health services are disputed, as little evidence exists to evaluate their efficacy. More empirical evaluations are needed to ensure that tribunals operate in a more evidence-based, systematic manner within the health sector.
- Constitutional court
- International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
- Iraqi Special Tribunal
- Lindsay Tribunal
- Nuremberg Trials
- Public Inquiry
- Revolutionary Tribunal
- Revolutionary tribunal (Russia)
- State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia
- The Elder Scrolls III: Tribunal (Morrowind expansion pack)
- Tribunal for Local Governments in Kerala
- Waitangi Tribunal
- World Courts of Women
- Canadian tribunals
|Look up tribunal in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Vierschaar.|
- Walker, David M. (1980), Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford University Press, p. 1239, ISBN 0-19-866110-X
- "Government to restructure tribunals, autonomous organisations", The Economic Times, 21 February 2016
- The Constitution Of The People's Republic Of Bangladesh, Article-117
- S.J. Hoffman, L. Sossin. 2012. “Empirically Evaluating the Impact of Adjudicative Tribunals in the Health Sector: Context, Challenges and Opportunities,” Health Economics, Policy and Law 7(2): 147-174. doi:10.1017/S1744133111000156
- L. Sossin, S.J. Hoffman. 2010. “The Elusive Search for Accountability: Evaluating Adjudicative Tribunals,” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 28(2): 343-360.