Suchergebnisse

Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court introduces readers to the most significant restorative feature of the ICC's procedure: direct victim participation in war crime trials. Under this new model, the ICC has given victims a voice to speak out against their abusers. T. Markus Funk presents the first comprehensive guidance on this innovative dynamic, analyzing not just the procedural rules that apply, but also the practical problems in advocating for victims before the ICC.

Edited by Colin S. Levy, a well-known legal tech influencer and advocate, Handbook of Legal Tech provides guidance from many of the leading figures within the legal tech space on the different parts of law practice being enhanced and improved by technology

I. What is Justice? -- II. The Idea of Natural Law -- III. God and the State -- IV. Law and Morality -- 1. Moral Norms as Social Norms -- 2. Morality as the Regulation of Internal Behaviour -- 3. Morality as a Primitive Order without Coercive Character -- 4. Law as a Part of Morality -- 5. Relativity of Moral Value -- 6. Separation of Law and Morality -- 7. Justification of Law by Morality -- V. State-Form and World-Outlook -- VI. The Foundation of the Theory of Natural Law -- VII. Causality and Accounting -- VIII. The Emergence of the Causal Law From the Principle of Retribution -- IX. On the Concept of Norm -- X. Law and Logic -- 1. Contradiction of Natural Law -- 2. Morality and Law -- 3. The Issue Clouded by Roman Law -- 4. No Imperative without an 'Imperator' -- 5. The Analogy is Misleading -- 6. Statement and Norm -- 7. Law is an Act of Will -- 8. Statement and Truth -- 9. Legislator and Judge -- 10. Robber and Judge -- 11. Statute Book and Textbook -- 12. Natural and Legal Science -- 13. Of the Spirit of the Laws -- 14. Logic and Psychology -- 15. 'Juridical Logic' -- XI. Law and Logic Again. On the Applicability of Logical Principles to Legal Norms -- XII. On the Practical Syllogism -- XIII. Derogation -- XIV. Norm and Value -- Index of Names -- Index of Subjects.

Law schools have a responsibility to remind law students that by studying law they have the power to transform thoughts, policies and lives, and that practising law is not just about financial rewards, but that its greatest reward is contributing to the betterment of society and ultimately to social change. The values and philosophies that law lecturers instil in law students can contribute to the legal order of the future; a legal order that supports a transformative South Africa. A need exists to bring legal education closer to the values enshrined in our Constitution. In addition to an extensive knowledge of legal principles, critical thinking and research skills, law students should critically engage with our constitutional values. The question remains: How do we transform legal education in South Africa? How do we change the way we teach law students? The introduction of concepts such as therapeutic jurisprudence enhanced by our constitutional values will ensure that we deliver graduates that display a commitment to our constitutional vales and an ability to engage critically with these values. It is important to establish a professional legal identity amongst students from their first year as this will assist in the development of a well-rounded graduate that can contribute to the legal order of the future. Letter writing and drafting skills, the value of plain language, moot court activities, alternative dispute resolution and clinical legal education provide opportunities to integrate valuable therapeutic jurisprudence principles into the curriculum and can allow students to critically engage with our constitutional values. By embodying these values they can improve the legal system, shape our legal order and promote progress toward an equal and free democratic society as envisaged by the Constitution.

Law schools have a responsibility to remind law students that by studying law they have the power to transform thoughts, policies and lives, and that practising law is not just about financial rewards, but that its greatest reward is contributing to the betterment of society and ultimately to social change. The values and philosophies that law lecturers instil in law students can contribute to the legal order of the future; a legal order that supports a transformative South Africa. A need exists to bring legal education closer to the values enshrined in our Constitution. In addition to an extensive knowledge of legal principles, critical thinking and research skills, law students should critically engage with our constitutional values. The question remains: How do we transform legal education in South Africa? How do we change the way we teach law students? The introduction of concepts such as therapeutic jurisprudence enhanced by our constitutional values will ensure that we deliver graduates that display a commitment to our constitutional vales and an ability to engage critically with these values. It is important to establish a professional legal identity amongst students from their first year as this will assist in the development of a well-rounded graduate that can contribute to the legal order of the future. Letter writing and drafting skills, the value of plain language, moot court activities, alternative dispute resolution and clinical legal education provide opportunities to integrate valuable therapeutic jurisprudence principles into the curriculum and can allow students to critically engage with our constitutional values. By embodying these values they can improve the legal system, shape our legal order and promote progress toward an equal and free democratic society as envisaged by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court early took note of extralegal, "social science" materials in Muller v. Oregon (1908), and a half‐century later made specific reference to social science authorities in the famous footnote 11 of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Since Brown, much has been written about the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence, but there has been little systematic study of that use. Those writing on the subject commonly focus on areas of law such as jury size, where social science has been used, and have generally assumed that social science information has been utilized in Supreme Court decisions with increasing regularity. Surprisingly little is known, however, about either the justices' baseline use of social science authorities, or many other aspects of their uses of social science information. The focus here is on the citation of social science research evidence in a sample of 240 criminal cases decided during the 30 years between the Supreme Court's 1958 and 1987 Terms. The resulting portrait contributes to a fuller understanding of the justices' use of social science materials, and may ultimately help promote more effective utilization of social science research evidence in Supreme Court decisions.

The American legal system has proven remarkably robust even in the face vast and often tumultuous political, social, economic, and technological change. Yet our system of law is not unlike other complex social, biological, and physical systems in exhibiting local fragility in the midst of its global robustness. Understanding how this "robust yet fragile†(RYF) dilemma operates in legal systems is important to the extent law is expected to assist in managing systemic risk — the risk of large local or even system-wide failures — in other social systems. Indeed, legal system failures have been blamed as partly responsible for disasters such as the recent financial system crisis and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If we cannot effectively manage systemic risk within the legal system, however, how can we expect the legal system to manage systemic risk elsewhere? This Article employs a complexity science model of the RYF dilemma to explore why systemic risk persists in legal systems and how to manage it. Part I defines complexity in the context of the institutions and instruments that make up the legal system. Part II defines the five dimensions of robustness that support functionality of the legal system: (1) reliability; (2) efficiency; (3) scalability; (4) modularity, and (5) evolvability. Part III then defines system fragility, examining the internal and external constraints that impede legal system robustness and the fail-safe system control strategies for managing their effects. With those basic elements of the RYF dilemma model in place, Part IV defines systemic risk, exploring the paradoxical role of increasingly organized complexity brought about by fail-safe strategies as a source of legal system failure. There is no way around the RYF dilemma — some degree of systemic risk is inherent in any complex adaptive system — but the balance between robustness and fragility is something we can hope to influence. To explore how, Part V applies the RYF dilemma model to a concrete systemic risk management ...