The Challenges of Participatory Justice for Public Adjudication
Another important theme to consider in civil justice is the convergence of a number of phenomena identified in civil procedure: the move toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the preference for settlement, the shifting of the role of the judge toward managerial judging, and the shifting of the role of lawyers toward conflict resolution advocacy. These phenomena all point to a discernible move away from justice by adjudication toward “participatory” justice, as well as a move away from public justice toward more private forms of justice. By private forms of justice, we mean both dispute resolution mechanisms that intervene only between parties without binding effect on third parties, as well as the rise of legal norms produced by private entities, which opposes the historically constructed idea that the State has a monopoly over legal norms and that legal norms are those which have been produced in a public forum. We offer an overview of some of the arguments put forward to justify and challenge these changes in dispute resolution processes, the role of judicial actors, and that of the State in the administration of justice. We also try to identify the values that may underlie these shifts.
Managerial Judging and the Evolution of Procedure
Pandas don't have thumbs. At least, they don't have real thumbs. Instead, they have funny little extensions of their wrist bones that they use to strip the shoots off bamboo branches. They look like thumbs, and they work like thumbs-at least they work well enough that not many pandas starve. But technically only primates have real thumbs, with bones and muscles opposed to the fingers. Evolutionary theorist Steven Jay Gould draws a number of lessons from the panda's "thumb."' The one relevant here is that evolution is not infinitely malleable. Evolutionary processes work by modifying existing structures until they become capable of performing new functions. Hence, the panda's "thumb"-an elongated wrist bone that can do some, but not all, of the things a real thumb can do. I hope to convince you that the procedural techniques grouped together under the rubric "managerial judging" have a lot in common with the panda's "thumb." This kind of analogy is not new.2 At the end of the first chapter of The Common Law, for example, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote:
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.