Eritrea vs South Sudan: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time
- Eritrea
- South Sudan
How they compare
Eritrea currently reports 0 DB16-20 methodology against 0 DB16-20 methodology in South Sudan, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, South Sudan has been ahead every year.
Eritrea ranks 161st and South Sudan ranks 161st of 188 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Eritrea or South Sudan?
- Eritrea, at 0 DB16-20 methodology against 0 DB16-20 methodology in South Sudan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Eritrea and South Sudan?
- 0 DB16-20 methodology, with Eritrea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eritrea and South Sudan?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Eritrea and South Sudan rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Eritrea ranks 161st and South Sudan ranks 161st of 188 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.