<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/144892">
    <title>OAR@UM Collection:</title>
    <link>https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/144892</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/145688" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2026-06-14T11:13:40Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/145688">
    <title>Resolving parliamentary deadlocks : towards a harmonised process for appointing the chief justice and integrity officers</title>
    <link>https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/145688</link>
    <description>Title: Resolving parliamentary deadlocks : towards a harmonised process for appointing the chief justice and integrity officers
Abstract: Malta’s democratic framework has been strengthened by provisions requiring a two-thirds &#xD;
parliamentary majority for the appointment of specific positions. This requirement enhances public &#xD;
confidence in officeholders, safeguards their independence, and reinforces their legitimacy in &#xD;
fulfilling their duties. However, the process also presents challenges. At times, the absence of the &#xD;
necessary parliamentary consensus results in deadlocks, which may delay essential appointments. &#xD;
Such circumstances can create uncertainty and operational gaps, with existing legal provisions &#xD;
either addressing or, in some cases, failing to address mechanisms for preventing deadlocks. This &#xD;
research examines the appointment procedures of constitutional and integrity institutions that &#xD;
require parliamentary supermajorities. It focuses on the political and legal evolution of these &#xD;
frameworks, the implementation of current appointment legislation, and the potential reform aimed &#xD;
at introducing anti-deadlock measures across various institutions to safeguard their functionality &#xD;
and independence.  &#xD;
The study specifically examines the appointment processes of the Chief Justice, the &#xD;
Ombudsman, the Auditor General, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, and the &#xD;
Chairperson of the Permanent Commission Against Corruption. The analysis demonstrates that &#xD;
the two-thirds provision is essential for those holding such offices and that there is a strong &#xD;
preference for solutions that preserve this principle. Although views differ on the precise   &#xD;
mechanisms to prevent deadlocks, the primary concerns identified are the long-term preservation &#xD;
of the institutions’ independence and legitimacy, while avoiding any vacancy in office. This study &#xD;
concludes by proposing a pathway to achieve these objectives.
Description: M.Sc.(Melit.)</description>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

