Skip to main content
HELPERGEcosystem
JusticeCenterID

Reference

Countries

How JusticeCenterID models national justice systems, and the current coverage status for each country.

32 of 33 countries have researched coverage

Every other country below is at coverage status planned: it is in the research queue and nothing has been written about it. A country page appears only when its modules have been researched and sourced to primary material.

  • France — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Germany — 8 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • United States — 8 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Ireland — 9 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Japan — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Brazil — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Canada — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Australia — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Spain — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Switzerland — 7 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Netherlands — 9 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Belgium — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Denmark — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Norway — 9 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Sweden — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Finland — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Italy — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Portugal — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Austria — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Czechia — 9 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Poland — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Greece — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • New Zealand — 9 of 13 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • South Korea — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Singapore — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • India — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Indonesia — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Mexico — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Argentina — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • South Africa — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Kenya — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.
  • Nigeria — 8 of 12 modules researched and published; the rest are listed on the country page as gaps.

How a country is modelled

Country coverage is built from fixed modules, so the same question can be compared across countries without the comparison being an assumption.

Each country hub will be assembled from the modules below. A module exists only where it has been researched: a country with sourced material on its courts and nothing on its corrections system will have a courts module and no corrections module. Absence is visible rather than filled with a stub.

  • Justice system

    How the justice system is constituted, and how its main branches relate to each other.

  • Law enforcement

    Which bodies enforce the law, under what legal status, and over what territory.

  • Courts

    How the court system is structured and which court does what.

  • Prosecution

    Who decides whether to prosecute, and what constrains that decision.

  • Criminal investigations

    Who investigates crime, under whose direction, and subject to what supervision.

  • Forensic system

    How forensic work is organised and how its findings reach a court.

  • Corrections and probation

    How sentences are administered, and who oversees places of detention.

  • Border and customs

    Which authorities handle borders and customs, and how their mandates differ.

  • Oversight and accountability

    Which bodies review these institutions, with what mandate and what powers.

  • Police recruitment

    Who recruits police officers here, what entry routes exist, what official eligibility applies, and where the current requirements are published.

  • Institutional history

    How these institutions developed — not a general history of the country.

  • Institutional timeline

    Dated, sourced institutional milestones.

  • Sources

    Every source used for this country, with what each one supports.

Recording what is not there

Not every country has sheriffs. Not every country has a gendarmerie. The same institutional name can denote a materially different role.

For each institution type, a country record can carry one of five states. This is the part of the model that makes honest comparison possible, because a blank cell and a researched “this does not exist here” are completely different claims.

Present
The institution type exists and performs broadly the function this platform describes for that type.
Not present
No institution of this type exists. Recorded explicitly, because a blank would be indistinguishable from unresearched.
Present under this name, but with a different function
An institution carrying this name exists but performs a materially different role. The most important state in the model: flattening it into “present” would be a factual error.
Formerly present; no longer exists
The institution type existed in the past and no longer does. Never presented in the present tense.
Not established
We researched the question and could not establish an answer from acceptable sources.

What makes country coverage difficult

  • National, federal, regional, and municipal structures divide responsibility differently, so “who polices this street” has a different kind of answer in each country.
  • Institutional names transfer between countries while the roles do not. Equivalence is a claim requiring a source, never an assumption.
  • Historical structures must never be presented as current ones, and continuity across a name change, a merger, or a change of political system is itself a claim.
  • Disputed and transitional jurisdictions require careful, attributed treatment. Where we cannot describe one neutrally and accurately, we will not cover it.
  • Official sources are often available only in the national language, and translating an institutional term is an interpretive act rather than a lookup.

Coverage status

The research queue, chosen for diversity of legal tradition and institutional structure rather than for size or search demand.

Africa

  • GhanaPlanned

Legal-system family and institution presence are deliberately not recorded above. Classifying a country’s legal tradition is a research output requiring sources, not an input we can supply from general impression. See our research methodology.