Many countries around the globe rely on ordinary citizens, untrained in the law, to decide the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens. Some countries use all-layperson juries, while others use mixed tribunals or mixed courts in which professional judges and lay citizens work together to decide a case. Still other countries use lay magistrates or lay judges working alone or on panels. This book provides a view of the different forms of lay participation and the ways in which they are evolving. It offers a comprehensive picture of how some countries have made recent and remarkable advances toward lay decision-making, while others have a long-standing form of lay participation that is well accepted in that country. Still other countries have faced challenges with lay participation and have opted for limiting the scope of lay legal decision-making or even abolishing it. The organization of this book illustrates that lay participation in a country is not fixed in stone; lay participation is being advanced, reinforced, or replaced in countries around the world. These shifting responses to lay participation suggest the prime importance of stepping back and taking a global perspective.

This chapter provides a snapshot view of the different ways that 195 countries around the world use lay participation in legal decision-making. We collected information from a variety of sources, including new expert surveys, legal research, and existing empirical evidence, to determine which countries use lay citizens as legal decision-makers in criminal cases and how they use them. Approximately two-thirds of the world’s countries use some form of lay participation, and the most commonly used forms are juries and mixed tribunals. The use and form of lay participation vary by geography and by the legal tradition of the country. The majority of countries in Africa, Australia and Oceania, Europe, and North America use some form of lay participation in their legal systems. Countries with common-law or customary-law legal traditions are most likely to rely on lay citizens as legal decision-makers. The widespread use of lay participants around the globe underscores the importance of studying this phenomenon. This chapter provides a baseline against which future studies in lay participation can be measured.

Lay participation is part of Germany’s legal system. Lay assessors, who are ordinary citizens, serve alongside professional judges on mixed tribunals. This chapter focuses on criminal courts that use lay assessors. We find that lay assessors indeed contribute to the work of the German criminal courts. Lay assessors are most active during deliberations, especially if the presiding professional judge accepts them as partners with equal rights. Most laypersons report a positive experience, and indeed, most professional judges sitting on mixed tribunals support lay participation. German court culture encourages lay assessors and professional judges to reach a consensual decision rather than taking a formal vote. The chapter suggests several reforms that would enable lay assessors to play a more active role on mixed tribunals.

While the transitional justice model, and “bottom-up” business and human rights strategies place emphasis on the role international actors and powerful foreign courts in the Global North play in advancing victims’ demands for justice, victims of corporate complicity in past human rights violations have rarely received justice using that strategy. This chapter examines the role of national courts in responding to victims’ demands for corporate accountability. It also examines how the Archimedes’ Lever analogy produces “justice from below.”

The first part of the chapter examines “justice form below” through a cross-national comparative analysis. It identifies where, when, and what type of corporate accountability has been achieved.Italso considers where progress toward corporate accountability from below through domestic courts has not been achieved.The next section attempts to explain those outcomes, drawing on a continuum of accountability outcomes and case studies to illustrate our argument. The conclusion explores the transformative potential of domestic judicial action in shaping international human rights.It also sets forth a set of guidelines for implementing “justice from below.”