Many generations of foreign control and occupation deprived the Palestinian people of the opportunity to develop their own functioning legal order. [1] Despite the historically disparate foreign influences [2] and the dilapidated condition of the Gazan and West Bank legal systems in the immediate post-occupation period, the Palestinians recently have sought to seize the opportunity to determine the fate of their own legal heritage. [3]

Dominated by the Ottoman Empire from the sixteenth century until World War I, [4] held under British authority during the inter-war period, [5] controlled by Egypt [6] (Gaza) [7] and absorbed by Jordan (West Bank) [8] from 1948 until 1967, and both Gaza and the West Bank most recently occupied by Israel [9] from the 1967 war until self-rule in 1994, [10] the Palestinians were subjected to a multiplicity of overlapping features from diverse foreign legal systems. Such periods of historical occupation and their corresponding legal eclecticism prevented the Palestinians from establishing their own legal tradition.

Significantly, the most recent period of Israeli occupation and the resulting social unrest of the Intifada devastated the functional operation of the courts by divesting the Palestinians of institutional resources, preventing the devel [11] opment of professional expertise, and halting the development of modern civil and criminal justice processes. [12] With the signing of the Cairo Accords, the Palestinians inherited two separate legal systems, barely functioning legal processes, and an outdated substantive law based on overlapping and inconsistent legal sources. [13]

Palestinian legal community leaders responded to this challenge through an innovative two-year, cross-national enterprise known as the Palestinian Legal Study. [14] Designed to build consensus, the Study identified and assessed the most urgent needs of the Palestinian legal systems in the beginning of the post-rule period. It determined aspirational standards for the future administration of Palestinian civil and criminal justice and tailored pragmatic recommendations to address immediate needs with procedural mechanisms and institutional measures also designed to achieve long-term Palestinian goals. [15]

1.2 The Methodology of the Palestinian Legal Study

The depth of the current crisis and the size of the future opportunity required an ambitious effort. To meet this challenge, the Study established channels of communication among isolated and non-contiguous communities in Gaza and the West Bank during a tumultuous period [16] in the Mid-East peace process, and produced consensus on the future direction of functional and systemic reform. The Palestinian Legal Study confronted the crisis with candor, [17] and adapted successful models to meet the political and economic goals of the newly autonomous society. The Study assessed the practical operation of the contemporary Palestinian civil and criminal justice systems and recommended reforms designed to achieve short and long-term objectives.

Conducted over many phases, the Study consisted of two major stages, the first prior to, and the second following, extensions of self-rule into the West Bank in late 1995 and Palestinian elections in January 1996. The June 1995 Study, capturing this first stage of assessment, focused on the restoration, rather than the unification, of the two systems. [18] Prematurely set and overly ambitious goals of unification had stymied technical committees initially assigned with law reform tasks. Given the dilapidated condition of the two systems, including the low level of support for the professional development of both judges and lawyers, the paucity of court resources, the lack of police investigative technology, and the absence of alternative fora for dispute resolution, the June 1995 Study concluded that it would be necessary to restore the functional operation of the courts prior to modernization and unification. [19] The difficulties faced by those attempting to unify the two systems convinced experts in the Study that legislative efforts aimed at long-term unification had to be deferred. Prior to unification, legal opinion leaders had to determine which procedural mechanisms and institutional development measures would satisfy the aspirations of both Palestinians and the international community for the achievement of a just civil and criminal justice system. The 1995 Study also anticipated problems, such as backlog and delay, which would result from increasing use of the courts. [20]

In the second stage, just as the first study had predicted, as Palestinians regained control of the Gazan and West Bank courts in late 1995 and early 1996, people began to use the courts again for the first time since the Intifada and thus partially restored the functional operation of legal processes. [21] The partial restoration of a functioning court system allowed a more detailed comparative assessment in June 1996 of the similarities and differences between Gazan and West Bank legal processes, with close attention to the developmental needs of institutional actors responsible for their practical operation. [22] Discussions about unification were once again deferred in favor of a functional analysis of legal process, such as the responsibilities of procedural actors to perform specific acts over time. This functional appreciation of the process formed the basis for both procedural and institutional recommendations which took into account, but did not necessarily establish, the broader goal of unifying the two systems.

To carry out this two-year endeavor, the Study established groups of experts to carry out both the assessment and recommendation phases of the Study. These study groups, consisting of judges, prosecutors, private lawyers, and legal academics, provided continuity and responsibility and established channels of communication both across and within Gaza and the West Bank, including the politically isolated cities of Nablus, Hebron/Bethlehem, and Ramallah. New lines of communication facilitated not only the immediate purposes of the Study but also created foundations for the long-term process of Palestinian legal decision-making. Study group members currently serve on committees that will determine the content of Palestinian law into the next century and the concomitant development of necessary legal institutions and professional organizations.

Therefore, by building systemic reform from the process up, the Study avoided the obstacles encountered by those who sought first to unify the two disparate systems. By drawing on the expertise and candor of legal community leaders, the Study built local consensus necessary for an accurate assessment and a pragmatic plan for reform.

1.3 The Broad Goals and General Reform Features

Applying a functional and systemic approach, the Study began with a systemic assessment of the institutional actors responsible for the administration of civil and criminal justice, including the judiciary and the courts, the police, alternative fora for dispute resolution, and the legal profession. The post- occupation institutional needs were so profound that procedural reform could not go forward without addressing these systemic problems.

The professional status and development of lawyers provided a prominent example of institutional weaknesses in the practical operation of the Palestinian legal systems. The absence of local law schools for nearly three decades forced aspiring lawyers out of the territories to pursue legal education in different foreign countries. Certification processes and regulatory bodies to determine local competence in the practice of law did not exist. Finally, the lack of an institutional ability to provide a meaningful defense to an indigent defendant undermined even minimal procedural goals of fairness and efficiency in the administration of criminal justice.

With these institutional needs in mind, the Study thus focused on the development of functioning legal processes that would both attract commerce and ensure the protection of human rights. The broad procedural goals of the Study were access and finality, accuracy and consistency, fairness and efficiency. The Study established a general and consistent direction of reform to meet those goals, such as early judicial control and accountability in both the civil and criminal justice processes. [23]

To meet these goals, the civil justice study recommended the development of a court management plan, incorporating case management functions and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Palestinian legal community leaders concluded that these mechanisms would enhance the ability of the society to resolve civil disputes in a timely and effective manner, so as to promote the growth of commerce. [24] The criminal justice study, which did not address the security courts, recommended measures to establish greater judicial control and accountability in the traditional criminal justice process. Specifically, an enhanced early right to counsel is guaranteed by an early public hearing before an impartial judicial magistrate and supported by a public defender system to serve the indigent. Legal community leaders (Palestinian judges, prosecutors and lawyers) agreed that these reforms would ensure human rights protections for those accused of criminal conduct.

Taken together, these reforms are expected to develop functioning legal processes designed to satisfy articulated procedural objectives. First, by reducing delay and expense and generally increasing efficiencies in court practices through court administration, case management, and alternative dispute resolution, these recommendations are designed to create greater accessibility and finality. Second, by increasing the responsibilities and professional competence of both judges (as case managers and mediators) and attorneys (as appointed criminal defense counsel) through rigorous training, and by creating greater uniformity of judicial process throughout the territories, these recommendations seek to increase the accuracy of factual findings and consistency in legal adjudication. Finally, by designing legal procedures to increase judicial control and accountability over both the civil and criminal justice processes, these recommendations are designed to improve both fairness and efficiency in civil dispute resolution and criminal prosecutions.

The foregoing civil and criminal justice proposals command a long-term commitment to training the primary actors in the legal process through building the institutions in which they are trained and in which they perform formal duties. By strengthening institutional actors responsible for the operation of the civil and criminal justice processes, these recommendations will be systemically integrated and supported. The ability to implement these reforms is also largely dependent on the maturation of the internal political and legal systems and the delineation of powers between the branches of the Palestinian government.

Responsibility now rests with the Palestinian National Authority and its branches of government to develop functioning legal institutions, adequately trained personnel, and legal processes [25] that are deemed fundamental to the achievement of economic prosperity [26] and political freedom. [27] While the temporary constitution [28] is being prepared to clarify decision-making powers, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, the eighty-eight member Legislative Council, the twelve-member Legal Council, and the judiciary must clarify their prescriptive responsibilities for the internal functions of the justice system. [29] Such a clarification of delegated powers will facilitate the implementation of the reforms designed in the Study.

1.4 A Roadmap to the Study

This Article uses the Palestinian Legal Study as a basis for reforming the Palestinian civil and criminal justice systems. Before discussing the reforms, Part II begins with an explication of the methods employed in reaching the recommendations promoted throughout the Article. Parts III and IV then describe, assess, and make recommendations for the reform of the civil and criminal justice processes, respectively. Part V assesses the current condition of Palestinian legal institutions and personnel and makes recommendations for their future development. The conclusion reflects on the significance of the Study for both the new Palestinian legal system and the broader peace process.

2. A FUNCTIONAL AND SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO REFORM [30]

Congruous and pragmatic reform proposals for the restoration and modernization of the Palestinian legal system require a coherent and practical approach to civil and criminal justice reform. Coherence depends on a broad comparative awareness of three factors: first, the difficult challenges that face newly emerging legal systems; second, the common experiences of other nations in confronting widespread systemic problems in the administration of justice; and third, strategies for overcoming obstacles to reform. The practical application of this awareness necessitates a rigorous approach to the development of recommendations based on an accurate appreciation of the functional operation of the legal system, accurate assessments of the problems, and creative proposals designed to solve those problems.

2.1 The Comparative Dimensions of the Reform Approach

2.1.1 Special Problems for New Legal Systems

New legal systems emerging from prolonged periods of civil war and occupation face special challenges. [31] Not only do they frequently inherit the procedural problems of their predecessors, but they frequently lack adequate institutional and human resources to combat those problems effectively. Like other more established nations, [32] from Chile [33] to China (PRC), [34] from Italy [35] to India, [36] from the United Kingdom [37] to the United States, [38] newly autonomous societies experience problems of backlog and delay in civil and criminal proceedings [39] and ineffective representation of those accused of criminal conduct, [40] particularly the indigent.

In addition to these common procedural problems confronting well-established systems, newly autonomous legal systems face an even greater set of obstacles created by the lack of basic institutional and human resources necessary to implement procedural reforms. If such resource deficiencies are not addressed, procedural reforms that are well-conceived on paper cannot be implemented in practice. Therefore, particularly in such systems, reform efforts must not only assess and make proper adjustments to ensure the functional operation of the legal process, they must also aim to strengthen the systemic actors responsible for both old and new legal functions. For these reasons, this Article has applied a functional and systemic approach to justice reform in the newly autonomous Palestinian territories.

2.1.2 Trends of Substantive and Procedural Law Reform [41]

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 spurred a global wave of legal reforms under the twin banners of capitalism and democracy. Governments have tended to express their related commitments to the privatization of markets and the protection of human rights through changes in substantive law, [42] leaving procedural and institutional reforms to lag behind. [43]

2.1.2.1 Backlog and Delay: Trends, Causes, and Strategies

Changes in commercial law and policy have encouraged more economic activity, including criminal economic conduct, but justice systems have responded more slowly to systemic challenges [44] posed by an increasing quantity and complexity of disputes arising from such activity. [45] As a result, backlog and delay are on the rise. [46]

Though difficult to measure and evaluate, [47] a variety of procedural and institutional factors may contribute causally to this phenomenon. [48] Procedural causes of backlog and delay include (1) free access for civil claimants to the courts without disincentives sufficient to prevent frivolous litigation processes, such as initiation without cause, extension without excuse, and motions without merit; [49] (2) discontinuity, repetition, and fragmentation of the legal processes, without early or accountable judicial interventions, such as court administration and case management mechanisms; [50] and (3) limited incentive or opportunity, especially early in the process, for consensual settlements, including venues for alternative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation. [51] Institutional causes of backlog and delay derive generally from insufficient investments in human and institutional resources to perform efficient procedural functions. [52] Thus, systemic considerations weigh heavily upon attempts to restore and modernize the operation of legal systems in countries previously denied a working legal order by foreign occupation or war.

General solutions to the problems of backlog and delay are easy to articulate. [53] Many countries have incorporated the right to speedy legal determinations into their procedural and constitutional law. [54] However, efforts to turn this principle into practice quickly encounter both ideological opposition [55] and practical obstacles. [56] Aside from the common but unrealized plea for more judges, [57] and better enforcement of pre-existing rights, national court systems tend to pursue three general, process-oriented strategies: litigation prevention, early judicial intervention in managing civil cases, [58] and alternative dispute resolution. [59]

Backlog and delay also raise serious problems in the administration of criminal justice. [60] Prevention, alternative means of resolution, and early hearings have been used alternatively to address this widespread problem. Crime prevention measures, such as community policing measures, [61] and greater police and prosecutorial discretion, [62] provide one approach to criminal court congestion. Another increasingly popular approach to this problem has been to allow the consensual admission of criminal liability, such as through guilty plea or plea-bargain mechanisms. [63]

2.1.2.2 Ineffective Protection of the Rights of the Accused: Trends, Causes, Strategies

Similarly, legal systems have not adjusted sufficiently to realize legal commitments to human rights. Principles of limited government coupled with the related recognition of minimum human rights standards [64] also place significant pressure on criminal justice reform.

In addition to backlog and delay, the effective representation of criminal defendants, particularly the indigent, is one of the most common procedural problems in the administration of justice. [65] Potential abuse of public investigatory powers in pre-trial criminal proceedings derives from a variety of functional and systemic [66] weaknesses in a wide range of national criminal justice systems. [67]

Many systems do not provide effective representation to those accused of crimes for various reasons. First, defense counsels play a procedurally restricted role, especially in the critical interrogation stage of the criminal process during which the fundamental factual issues of a case are determined. Second, many criminal defendants do not have effective representation because (1) they cannot afford defense counsel, (2) many of those who face significant terms of incarceration do not have the legal right to court-appointed counsel, and (3) even when available, court-appointed defense counsel administered through a public defender system (or some functional equivalent) are inadequately trained and lack sufficient resources (e.g., sufficient compensation, [68] the means to investigate) to provide effective representation. [69] Finally, failure to require an early hearing before an impartial judicial officer leaves criminal justice systems without a sufficient mechanism to ensure that these rights have been actually protected in practice.

Modern international trends in criminal justice reform are beginning to respond to these problems. The formal and informal pressures to observe human rights standards have begun to create a qualified convergence among criminal justice systems. [70] First, some systems have begun to ensure an early, public appearance before a judicial officer. [71] Second, some criminal justice processes require that the accused be informed of a right to counsel and the availability of state-appointed counsel for those who cannot afford an attorney. [72] Third, some systems have moved forward in subsidizing the availability of state-appointed counsel through legal aid or public defender frameworks. [73] Finally, a few procedural systems provide a broader role for such counsel. [74]

2.1.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Reform [75]

Despite the importance of civil and criminal justice process reform, new proposals are frequently ineffective or slow to develop for five reasons. [76] First, as noted earlier, procedural reform frequently follows substantive reform. Second, successful procedural reforms require attention to the institutional and human resources available to implement new court and out- of-court practices. Some proposals are thus inefficient due to their presupposition of large investments of unavailable resources. For example, widespread pleas for more judges are rarely implemented because of insufficient funds. Third, the opportunity to draw constructively on foreign legal experience is often lost due to superficial and static comparative legal analysis. Either such experience is deemed irrelevant based on parochial assumptions that foreign systems are incompatible, or foreign models are uncritically accepted without modification. As a result, such analysis ignores special features of the local legal system that may frustrate the achievement of reform objectives. Fourth, many governments have had exclusive responsibility for the evaluation of reform. The absence of a significant role for non-governmental experts inhibits the growth of new ideas and eliminates potentially valuable discourse among major participants of the legal process. Finally, many reform proposals are stalled or rejected either by political opposition or by emphasis on negative receptivity factors. For example, some countries may be reluctant to adopt alternative dispute resolution mechanisms because of their strong association with market economies or to provide procedural protections to those accused of criminal activity because of public anti-crime sentiment. [77]

However strong the opposition to such reform, commentators should acknowledge that the failure to address the most critical problems in many court systems itself tends to deny access to civil litigants, frustrate the implementation of human rights, exacerbate resource disparities, and divert cases to private forms of resolution. A protracted civil litigation process of several years not only undermines the finality of judgments but also indirectly denies access by creating a strong disincentive to using the courts. A prolonged period of custody prior to criminal trial is tantamount to incarceration without a determination of guilt. The ability of the state to detain those accused of criminal conduct acts as a coercive measure to compel confessions. [78] The limited role of the defendant and a legal representative for the defense leaves the state prosecution’s powers unchecked, and renders the criminal justice process vulnerable to an over-extension of such powers inconsistent with emerging human rights norms. Finally, if the courts are not a feasible option for a timely judgment, parties either ignore their disputes or resolve them by other private strategies. The failure to build the confidence of both commercial investors and political actors in civil and criminal justice processes acts as an impediment to economic growth and political stability. Thus, concerns raised by opponents to reform may be raised even more critically by those frustrated with the deliberate or inattentive preservation of the status quo. [79]

In order to address these obstacles and to provide helpful assistance to other nations currently in pursuit of civil and criminal justice system reform, the Palestinian Legal Study views functional and systemic development as necessary for effective substantive legal reform and the achievement of market-oriented and human rights policies. By drawing on the Palestinian and the United States experience, as well as recent achievements in other countries and contemporary international procedural trends, this approach attempts to design creative recommendations, without requiring unrealistically large investments of unavailable financial resources. Modest investments in training will provide a starting point of implementation before larger investments in professional and institutional development follow. Finally, though mindful of the controversial nature of the reforms, the Study derives its conclusions from the conviction that to accept the status quo is a far worse alternative to its proposed solutions.

2.2 Applications of the Functional and Systemic Approach

2.2.1 The Functional and Systemic Model [80]

The functional and systemic approach has been developed and applied elsewhere with preliminary success. [81] The Study developed an explicit methodology through which nations can conduct functional and systemic reform efforts based in part on a comparison with the experiences of other countries, like the United States. [82] Although a review of the comparative legal scholarship on law reform rendered little practical advice, [83] the Study addressed skeptical and vexing questions. [84] Similar to comparative studies in other environments, the Study had to explain the relevance of United States legal experience in the Palestinian territories, as well as identify the comparative methods that would possibly bridge the gap between not only the United States and the Palestinian territories, but also between Gaza and the West Bank. [85] This approach avoids the “causes of failure in ‘law and development’ programs in the 1960s [86] as well as many of the dilemmas confronted in more recent, United States-sponsored ‘rule of law’ programs.” [87]

Egypt [88] and Jordan [89] both have legal processes which closely resemble those in the Palestinian territories, not only because of direct influence, but because of a common foreign (Ottoman and French) influence. Previous research in these two countries found that the traditional common law/civil law dichotomy [90] and the single-theory models upon which this dichotomy tends to be based provided insufficient explanatory power for purposes of effective reform. [91] Instead of presupposing any particular reconfiguration of allocated responsibilities over time, the Study began with open-ended questions that aimed to identify which actors were responsible for which particular procedural functions over which steps in the formal legal process (such as the factual investigation of civil claims, or the appointment of counsel for the accused in criminal proceedings). [92] Concurrent with this functional investigation, the Study posed questions concerning the actors themselves, their training, and the strength of the institutions in which they were trained and in which they perform their public responsibilities. This allowed the Study Groups to gain an accurate appreciation of the practical operation of the civil and criminal justice systems. Functional analysis was particularly important in the Palestinian territories, where the Gazan and West Bank processes have points of divergence, and where the civil and criminal justice processes reflect overlays of Ottoman, British, French, Egyptian (in Gaza), Jordanian (on the West Bank), and Israeli influence. Rather than to discover the precise measure of these various influences, the purpose of the Palestinian Legal Study was to gain a contemporary appreciation of the actual operation of the legal systems in order to develop accuracy in assessment and practicability in the resulting recommendations. The systemic analysis was equally important in its application to the Palestinian territories, given the crucial institutional and human resources they generally lack for the implementation of significant procedural reforms.

To be successful, this approach could not be applied from a distance. Discoveries would not be made through traditional methods of legal research. If formal procedures were not consistently followed, basing assessments and recommendations on book learning attentive to code provisions would render poor results. [93] Therefore, research had to rely on meetings, interviews, commentary, and thorough reporting continuously reviewed for accuracy by the Palestinians themselves. [94]

2.2.2 The Participants: Identifying Problems, Formulating Solutions

Implementation of the functional and systemic approach required the pursuit of an ambitious cross-national enterprise. This enterprise utilized a variety of investigative tools and drew upon the legal expertise, candor, and creativity of a wide range of United States and Palestinian legal experts. These experts formed special study groups committed to a comprehensive study of the Palestinian legal systems.

The practical approach of the Study was threefold. [95] First, the Study sought “to understand and appreciate the institutional, professional, and procedural problems encountered in the practical operation of the Palestinian legal systems.” [96] Second, the Study drew on efforts “to identify, explain, and demonstrate the mechanisms and techniques designed to address similar problems in the United States, and the institutional and professional development presupposed by such procedures (including a discussion of obstacles to reform in the United States process).” [97] Third, the Study concluded with recommendations reached by consensus for “comprehensive remedies aimed at the restoration of a functioning domestic legal system and the eventual development and achievement of international standards for a just legal process.” [98]

Accordingly, the Study consists of “a combination of practical demonstrations, critical commentary (public and private) and collaborative study group sessions designed to determine the feasibility of a wide range of reform approaches.” [99] Participation in the Study by a diverse group of Palestinian judges and lawyers, who work every day in the civil and criminal courts and thus are the most likely agents of practical change, was indispensable at each stage of the Study. [100]

2.2.3 Practical Application of the Functional and Systemic Approach

2.2.3.1 Understanding Practical Palestinian Problems

As mentioned above, the functional and systemic approach begins with an understanding and recognition of the practical operation of the legal system. Thus, as a fundamental step, “the U.S. Legal Delegation gained a deep appreciation of the actual operation of the Palestinian legal systems through its many visits to Gaza and the West Bank.” [101] This was critical to cultivating an open relationship for the candid responses necessary to assess Palestinian problems. And with “(t)he combination of candor, continuity, openness, practicality, and creativity,” the United States delegations “help(ed) to develop mutual respect and the cultivation of similar qualities in host delegations.” [102]

2.2.3.2 Identification, Explanation, and Demonstration of Relevant United States Procedures

The following excerpt from Attachment D of the Study explains the participatory methodology used to identify indigenous Palestinian legal processes and adaptation of transferable procedural reforms of American design to the fundamental structures and tenets of the Palestinian legal system:

[The U.S. Legal Delegation] and the Palestinian legal opinion leaders established both independent and joint U.S. and Palestinian study groups . . . to assist Palestinian legal opinion leaders in the translation of foreign United States processes into forms most accessible to Gaza and the West Bank. These study groups facilitated the long-term, collaborative study by United States and Palestinian leading opinion leaders of various solutions to problems in civil and criminal process. [103]

The U.S. Legal Delegation consisted of experts in the United States processes under consideration through various phases of the Study. [104] The Palestinian Legal Study Group represented a large number of legal constituencies, whose broad involvement was critical to the development of practical solutions. [105] In further support of reform, the members of the group are the most likely agents of change and will become involved in assisting with various implementation efforts. [106]

After a preliminary survey of the practical problems currently facing the civil and criminal legal processes, the Study identified several United States mechanisms and techniques used to confront comparable problems in both federal and state United States courts. [107]

Examining the United States civil justice system, the Study pinpointed two approaches [108] to address inefficiencies in the contemporary dispute resolution process--case management [109] and summary judgment [110] --and four alternative dispute resolution mechanisms intended to encourage consensual settlements--judicial settlement, [111] early neutral evaluation, [112] mediation, [113] and non-binding arbitration. [114]

In the criminal justice investigation, the Study identified several processes and/or institutional features [115] that safeguard against human rights violations, including mechanisms and procedures for arrest, [116] right to counsel, right to counsel for the indigent, a public defender system, formal charging, [117] initial presentation before a magistrate judge, [118] criminal discovery, guilty plea procedures, plea bargaining, bail proceedings, pre-trial hearings [119] and sentencing. [120] These mechanisms ensure the legality of arrests, provision of early defense counsel, prevention of coerced confessions, and also ensure that defendants who acknowledge their guilt do not languish in prison for longer than the predicted maximum conviction sentence. [121]

During two seminars conducted in Salzburg, Austria, [122] a neutral location chosen to circumvent obstacles to internal travel posed by frequent disturbances and border closures, “the American and Palestinian Legal (Study Groups) explained the practical operation and underlying primary purpose of the procedures thus identified through a combination of papers, lectures and demonstrations.” [123] Facilitating comprehension of the relevant United States and Pa