Search results

Treaties — Interpretation of — Consideration of preparatory work — Interpretation by reference to history of origin — Interpretation in accordance with domestic law of one contracting party — The law of Germany.The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Plea of non-discrimination — Right to equality before the law — Whether guaranteed to aliens by Austrian Constitution — Whether guaranteed by European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 (Article 14) — The law of Austria.

Abstract We propose a simple model of the emergence of equality before the law. A society can support effort ('cooperation', 'prosocial behaviour') using the carrot of future cooperation or the stick of coercive punishment. Community enforcement relies only on the carrot and involves low coercion, low inequality and low effort. A society in which elites control the means of violence supplements the carrot with the stick, and involves high coercion, high inequality and high effort. In this regime, elites are privileged by both laws and norms: because they are not subject to the same punishments as non-elites, norms are also more favourable for them. Nevertheless, it may be optimal—even from the elites' perspective—to establish equality before the law, where all agents are subject to the same coercive punishments and norms are more equal. The key mechanism is that equality before the law increases elites' effort, which improves the carrot of future cooperation and thus encourages even higher effort from non-elites. Equality before the law combines high coercion and low inequality. Factors that make equality before the law more likely to emerge include limits on the extent of coercion, greater marginal returns to effort, increases in the size of the elite group, greater political power for non-elites and, under some additional conditions, lower economic inequality.

AbstractWe propose a simple model of the emergence of equality before the law. A society can support effort ('cooperation', 'prosocial behaviour') using the carrot of future cooperation or the stick of coercive punishment. Community enforcement relies only on the carrot and involves low coercion, low inequality and low effort. A society in which elites control the means of violence supplements the carrot with the stick, and involves high coercion, high inequality and high effort. In this regime, elites are privileged by both laws and norms: because they are not subject to the same punishments as non-elites, norms are also more favourable for them. Nevertheless, it may be optimal—even from the elites' perspective—to establish equality before the law, where all agents are subject to the same coercive punishments and norms are more equal. The key mechanism is that equality before the law increases elites' effort, which improves the carrot of future cooperation and thus encourages even higher effort from non-elites. Equality before the law combines high coercion and low inequality. Factors that make equality before the law more likely to emerge include limits on the extent of coercion, greater marginal returns to effort, increases in the size of the elite group, greater political power for non-elites and, under some additional conditions, lower economic inequality.

Abstract: Implementation of "Equality Before The Law" principle in Military Court System. One of Law State concept is A free an neutral judicial. Supreme Court is the highest Court , institution that conduct law enforcement within judicial competency, including Military Court. New Order Era had an immense authority to place a Military as a "special citizen". It leads to military supremacy towards civilian. It was reflected by special rights attributed to Military. As a result, Military Court is perceived as to a nationality principle and equality before the law principle. It then influences our quality of democracy Abstrak: Penerapan Azas "Equality Before The Law" dalam Sistem Peradilan Militer. Salah satu konsep negara hukum ialah adanya peradilan bebas dan tidak memihak. Adanya Mahkamah Agung sebagai pelaksana penegakkan hukum oleh badan-badan peradilan (termasuk Peradilan Militer) di bawah Mahkamah Agung yang merupakan alat kekuasaan kehakiman. Orde Baru memiliki otoritas yang sangat besar ketika menempatkan seorang militer sebagai warga negara "khusus" serta penolakan terhadap konsep supremasi sipil. Hal ini dengan jelas menunjukkan bahwa "supremasi militer" lah yang tetap dipertahankan dengan adanya hak-hak istimewa tertentu terhadap prajurit TNI. Akibatnya peradilan militer masih sering mengabaikan prinsip kewarganegaraan dan azas Equality Before The Law, sehingga berpengaruh besar pada kualitas demokrasi. DOI:10.15408/jch.v1i2.2998

AbstractThe birth of the Constitutional Court Verdict No.16 / PUU-XVI / 2018 has implications for the authority of the Council of Honors (MKD) of the House Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) which was previously regulated in Article 2 of Act Number 2 of 2018 concerning the Second Amendment to Act Number 17 of 2018 concerning the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR-RI), Regional Representative Council (DPRD), and Regional House of Representatives (DPD) (UU MD3). The problem in this study is First, how is the position of the right to immunity of members of the house of representatives in the perspective of equality before the law?. Second, how is the implication of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 releated to the MKD (Council Honorary Court)?. This research is a normative study using a legislative approach, a historical apporach, and a case approach. The results of the study show that right of immunity of the DPR members not contradicting the principle of equality before the law as long as the meaning of the right of immunity does not cover the total immunity of the members of the DPR as citizens in general. In addition, the right of immunity only relates to the functions and authority and duties of the DPR. The verdict of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 has implications on two things, the abolition of MKD authority in giving preliminary considerations before the Presidents written permission is born, as well as an agreement to call and request information from DPR Members in relations to criminal acts only through the Presidents permission.Keywords: House of Representatives, Constitutional Court, Equality Before The Law, RightOf Immunity.