Suchergebnisse

Die Rechtsvergleichung ist schon lange keine alleinige Domäne des Zivilrechts mehr. Gerade durch das engagierte Plädoyer von Peter Häberle, die Rechtsvergleichung als nunmehr "fünfte Auslegungsmethode" in den Kanon der bisher anerkannten vier Auslegungsmethoden aufzunehmen, ist die Rechtsvergleichung in den öffentlich-rechtlichen Fokus gerückt. Insbesondere die Rechtsprechung, namentlich die des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, bedient sich zunehmend rechtsvergleichender Argumente bei der Auslegung und Interpretation nationalen Rechts. Trotz dieser gewachsenen Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung für die Praxis des öffentlichen Rechts und des damit verbundenen Interesses an dieser Thematik, fehlte es bisher an einer Arbeit, in der die öffentlich-rechtliche Rechtsprechung, v.a. die des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes, mit rechtvergleichenden Bezügen systematisch aufgearbeitet und in den größeren Kontext der allgemeinen Methodendiskussion eingeordnet wird. Diese bisher bestehende Lücke versucht diese Arbeit zu schließen. Comparative Law has long been the sole domain of civil law. Peter Haeberle's dedicated plea to incorporate comparative law as "the fifth method of interpretation" in the canon of the historically recognized four methods of interpretation, has brought comparative law into the focus of the field of public law. In particular, the case-law, namely the one of the Federal Constitutional Court, is increasingly using arguments from foreign law to interpret its national constitutional law. Despite this growing importance of comparative law for the practice of public law and the related interest in this topic, a thorough assessment of comparative public-case-law, namely the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court, was missing so far. This study tries to close this gap by systematically evaluating comparative references and placing them in the

Introduction: dimensions of inquiry -- Speaker intent and convention; linguistic meaning and pragmatics; vagueness and indeterminacy: three topics in the philosophy of language -- Literary interpretation, performance art, and related subjects -- Religious interpretation -- General theories of interpretation -- Starting from the bottom: informal instructions -- The law of agency -- Wills -- Contracts -- Judicial alterations of textual provisions: Cy Pres and relatives -- Conclusion and a comparison

IN APPLYING THE LAW JUDGES MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHAT IT MEANS, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE ON ITS MEANING. THEIR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS MAY RESULT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FROM THEIR VARYING PERSPECTIVES ON THEIR OWN MISSION, THEIR DIFFERENT VALUES, AND THEIR DIFFERENT IN THIS ARTICLE, PROFESSOR SUE DAVIS ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY THE INGREDIENTS OF WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AS THESE EMERGE FROM HIS OPINIONS IN CASES INVOLVING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

La constitucionalización del derecho en Colombia obedece a una participación activa del juez, en particular del juez constitucional. El precedente judicial fuente del derecho es una muestra de la inclusión del juez en el escenario constitucional como garante de la democracia y del derecho. El ideal demo-crático incluye irreversiblemente al juez constitucional y sus interpretaciones. La sobreinterpretación del derecho responde a una interpretación amplia de la Constitución y a la construcción de normas que en algo contribuyen a llenar las lagunas del derecho. Con ello, el neoconstitucionalismo, es constitucionalizar el ordenamiento jurídico. ; The constitutionalization of law in Colombia is due to an active participation of the judge, in particular, of the constitutional judge. The judicial precedent source of law is an example of the inclusion of the judge on the constitutional stage as guarantor of democracy and law. The democratic ideal irreversibly in-cludes the constitutional judge and his interpretations. The overinterpretation of law answers to a broad interpretation of the Constitution and to a building of norms that contribute something to fill the gaps in the law. Thus neoconsti-tutionalism is constitutionalizing the juridical order.

Admission to a Spanish military prison originates the birth of a special relationship of submission without the Spanish military prison system to prevent the exercise of judicial actions against the abuses and deviations that may occur for when the inmate is still a subject of law and order. This paper makes a study of the supervising judge in the military realm and its functions, judicial resources has the domestic military court in the prison in the field and provides solutions to legal loopholes to conclude with a final assessment of the system. ; El ingreso en una prisión militar española origina el nacimiento de una relación de especial sujeción sin que el sistema penitenciario militar español pueda impedir el ejercicio de acciones judiciales ante los abusos y desviaciones que puedan producirse por cuando el interno sigue siendo sujeto de derecho y no objeto. El presente trabajo hace un estudio del Juez de Vigilancia en el ámbito castrense y sus funciones, los recursos judiciales que tiene el interno en el ámbito penitenciario militar y aporta soluciones ante vacíos legales para concluir haciendo una valoración final del sistema.Admission to a Spanish military prison originates the birth of a special relationship of submission without the Spanish military prison system to prevent the exercise of judicial actions against the abuses and deviations that may occur for when the inmate is still a subject of law and order. This paper makes a study of the supervising judge in the military realm and its functions, judicial resources has the domestic military court in the prison in the field and provides solutions to legal loopholes to conclude with a final assessment of the system.

When the Constitution established three branches of government, it did not create three hermetically sealed areas of responsibility. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are required to govern through a certain degree of accommodation. One area in which the need for accommodation between the judicial branch and the other two branches was recognized at an early stage is cases containing questions bearing on foreign relations.' Under the Constitution it appears that the conduct of the foreign relations is vested in the Executive with a secondary role for the Congress, but that the courts have no role to play in this area. Litigation brought to the courts, however, has been found to demand decisions affecting foreign relations. To avoid breaching the constitutionally required separation of powers in these instances, the Supreme Court has determined that the judiciary should move away from its role as a neutral decision maker . In these instances the courts are either to decide the cases consistent with the wishes of the executive branch or to refuse to decide, thus effectively sanctioning the status quo. It is apparent from the district court's treatment of the deference question that it doubted the appropriateness of judicial restraint in submerged lands cases and that it did not understand the injunction of the Supreme Court. This error is primarily the product of the Supreme Court's failure to identify the factors that require judicial restraint for foreign relations reasons and to test the submerged lands cases against those factors. If the Supreme Court would conduct this examination, this writer submits that it would probably find judicial restraint inappropriate in the submerged lands cases. Part one of this article undertakes that review by delineating the primary subject matter areas in which judicial restraint has been exercised for foreign relations purposes. These areas are: recognition, sovereign immunity, act of state, treaty interpretation and territorial questions. Each area involves a ...

La constitucionalización del derecho en Colombia obedece a una participación activa del juez; en particular del juez constitucional. El precedente judicial fuente del derecho es una muestra de la inclusión del juez en el escenario constitucional como garante de la democracia y del derecho. El ideal democrático incluye irreversiblemente al juez constitucional y sus interpretaciones. La sobreinterpretación del derecho responde a una interpretación amplia de la Constitución y a la construcción de normas que en algo contribuyen a llenar las lagunas del derecho. Con ello; el neoconstitucionalismo; es constitucionalizar el ordenamiento jurídico ; The constitutionalization of law in Colombia is due to an active participation of the judge; in particular; of the constitutional judge. The judicial precedent source of law is an example of the inclusion of the judge on the constitutional stage as guarantor of democracy and law. The democratic ideal irreversibly includes the constitutional judge and his interpretations. The overinterpretation of law answers to a broad interpretation of the Constitution and to a building of norms that contribute something to fill the gaps in the law. Thus neoconstitutionalism is constitutionalizing the juridical order.

With friends like Edwin Meese and Robert Bork, "jurispru-
dence of original intent" (p. 3) needs no enemies. These
polemicists have so corrupted originalism by associating it
with reactionary ideology and partisan politics that, in Keith
Whittington's words, "the task now is to convince critics to
take [it] seriously again" (p. xii). Constitutional Interpretation
ably performs this task. Whittington's rescue of originalist
jurisprudence from its strangest bedfellows in itself is a major
contribution to the study of constitutional law. But, although
originalism has found a genuine friend, the book's powerful
argument against "dismissing originalism as an interpretive
method" (p. 162) does not constitute an affirmative defense.
Whittington's efforts to make this case are informative and
provocative, but they fail. This failure is traceable to serious
defects in both the structure and content of the book.