Suchergebnisse

The California judiciary is one of three branches of the state government. This paper provides an overview of the current court system, its historical development, its relationship with the other branches of state government and the federal courts, and a comparison of California's judiciary with other states' judicial systems.

This note considers the performance of the South African courts in deciding environmental cases and suggests that, notwithstanding some good decisions, there are still too many decisions where the courts are not applying relevant legislative provisions or misinterpreting the law. It is suggested that the future acceptable performance of the courts not only rests on correct interpretation and application of the legislation, but also increased familiarity by judges with the technical environmental context within which the cases are situated. The role of legal practitioners in achieving this is also highlighted.

"Reprinted from Political science quarterly, vol. XVII, no. 3, and vol. XVIII, no. 3." ; Bibliographical foot-notes. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The digital era invoked new challenges to judicial systems. The Internet enabled violation of privacy and intellectual property rights and enhanced the magnitude of criminal activity. Recognizing the inability of courts to handle a high magnitude of lawsuits, along with enforcement difficulties, policymakers worldwide chose to delegate quasi-judicial powers to online intermediaries that facilitate or enable such potential violations or infringements of rights. Search engines were first tasked to perform a quasi-judicial role under a notice-and-takedown regime to combat copyright infringement around the world. Recently, the European Union (EU) decided to delegate judicial authority to search engines by granting rights of erasure, or delisting of personal data, about EU individuals under certain circumstances. Effectively, the EU placed search engines—mainly Google currently—as a judiciary, tasked to balance different fundamental human rights. This privatization of the judiciary represents a new paradigm in legal systems and possesses vast global ramifications, which must be further scrutinized. This Article provides such scrutiny. It begins by briefly exploring the rights to be forgotten and delisted. It then provides an overview of the quasi-judicial roles played by search engines prior to the new EU rights regime and compares them to their new judicial role. Following an examination of the pragmatic and normative difficulties in the implementation of the EU rights regime, this Article evaluates and discusses the future of the private judiciary. It examines the drawbacks and benefits of judicial privatization; explores whether other means of regulation are more appropriate; and proposes modest solutions to properly address the shortcomings of the new privatized judiciary. This Article warns against such form of privatization and its current implementation, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. If policymakers insist on adjudicating search engines, they must also restrain their judicial power and ...

This article discusses the culture of speech and rhetoric in the judiciary.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No.78 that the judiciary "has no influence over . the purse."' Yet in Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court approved indirect judicial taxation. Hamilton wrote that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous" and "beyond comparison the weakest" branch of government. Yet in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created out of nothing a right to choose abortion, invalidated the abortion laws of all fifty states developed over more than a century, and shut millions of Americans out of the process of developing public policy on this important political issue. Hamilton wrote that the "liberty of the people can never be endangered from [the judicial] quarter." Yet in Employment Division v. Smith," the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the constitutional protection for citizens to freely exercise their religion.

Professor Suli delivered the Fifth Annual Herbert L. Bernstein Memorial Lecture in Comparative Law in 2006 and this article is based on his remarks, with a foreword by Jonathan Ocko. The article is included in the inaugural volume of CICLOPs thatcollects the first six Bernstein lectures. In responding to Sending Law to the Countryside, Professor Frank Upham levied a number of criticisms against Professor Zhu Suli's book. Of particular importance was Upham's criticism concerning a lack of attention to the role of politics and political power in the Chinese legal system. Suli finds this criticism to be extremely important because it reflects what Suli believes to be an inherent bias against and misunderstanding of the Chinese legal system and legal culture by Western comparative legal theorists. Suli asserts that this criticism is misguided because it overlooks the vast differences between legal thought in the vein of Western ideology versus the Chinese strain of legal thought. Arguing that Upham approaches Chinese law from a bias created by an inherently Western ideology concerning law, Suli argues that the culture and governmental framework of China blurs the traditional Western lines drawn between law and politics. By illustrating the weakness of Upham's criticism through showing the particular methods that the Chinese legal system uses to achieve the goal of social order, Suli demonstrates the need for caution when engaging in comparative legal scholarship across two vastly different cultural and legal systems.

"In the legislature of the state of Alabama, Regular Session 1915, .Containing report of Special Judiciary Commmittee of the Legislature, with a minority report; also House Bills 781 to 849, and resolutions by said committee." -- at head of title. ; Caption title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This text to be published in a handbook of political science offers a political sociology of the judiciary. ; Ce texte à paraître dans un Manuel de science politique propose une sociologie politique du pouvoir judiciaire.

In this last Chapter, the consequences of differences in perceptions are examined. Two concepts are used: the lack of alignment and—more extreme—the disconnect between judiciary and society. Ranking countries by trust in the judiciary, in the lowest 20% there is a disconnect of judiciary and society, in the 20% around the median and in the highest 20% there is lack of alignment. Disconnect and lack of alignment seem to be self-perpetuating, as judges do not perceive the state of independence as problematic. Indications are that even a disconnect does not reduce the use of the civil courts, but that it leads citizens to avoid administrative law procedures. A disconnect weakens the position of the judiciary within the trias politica. This reinforces the complicated relationship between the judiciary and the other state powers. Where the other state powers see an increasing influence of the judiciary, the judiciary sees its own independence endangered. These perspectives clash. For the judiciary the way out is to focus on access to justice as an alternative perspective. By addressing the urgent legal needs of citizens, the judiciary has the potential to improve its alignment with society and its position within the trias politica.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a high level overview of some of the issues and stumbling blocks Canada has encountered in building a diverse judiciary. Part 1 of the paper begins by providing a brief overview of the heterogeneous makeup of Canadian society against the homogenous makeup of the judiciary. This will provide a helpful backdrop from which to explore conceptual questions related to the question of why a diverse judiciary matters. Part 2 examines some of the historical questions and milestones in the judiciary related to diversity. Part 3 summarizes the judicial appointments processes and takes a look at Canada's recent history related to judicial appointments and judicial diversity – specifically judicial appointments under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government and recent moves by the new Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The paper wraps up with our thoughts on reforms that might signal greater commitment to diversity and inclusion as essential elements of an effective and independent judiciary.

An ombudsman institution is one of the most rapidly developing institutions in modern democratic states. Ombudsmen can be characterised as individual and impartial investigators of administration and its conduct. They act as dispute resolution mechanisms between the state and individuals and sometimes also as solvers of problems of individuals. In order to assess the quality of administrative conduct they use normative standards against which they assess this conduct. However, all these matters are primarily in the hands of the judiciary. The judiciary, notably administrative courts are the most important dispute resolution mechanisms in modern states that assess the administrative conduct against certain normative standards. Thus ombudsmen and the judiciary can be often seen as institutions having relatively similar competences in a relatively similar area, despite retaining numerous differences. They both are approached by the individuals and they can express their opinions about administrative justice. This paper highlights the main findings and recommendations of a comparative legal research carried out in the area of mutual interrelations of ombudsmen and the judiciary. On the examples of three different legal systems (the Netherlands, England and the European Union) the research discusses the possibility of coordination of relations between the ombudsman and the judiciary in connection with the position of these institutions, with their jurisprudence and ombudsprudence and with normative standards they use in their work.

The article is devoted to the constitutional foundations of judiciary in Ukraine. According to article 6 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state power in Ukraine is divided into three main branches – legislative, еxecutive and justice. For each of these branches there is a corresponding system of foundations and principles that determine their essence and specific features of organization and functioning of the mechanism of the state. They play a key role for the judiciary in Ukraine. Appropriate due to the main objective of the national judiciary – a provision of the capacity for each person to exercise their right to a fair trial,based on the rule of law. Considering the issues, it is first necessary to pay attention to the essence of the concepts "foundations" and "principle" as constitutional categories. It should be noted, that these concepts have the same meaning for the expression of fundamental ideas and leadership directions of the organization and functioning of all basic constitutional legal institutions in Ukraine. The concept of the constitutional foundations of justice in Ukraine, given the position on the advisability of securing the appropriate category in the position of art.129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is a basic norm in the system of foundations and principles of the judicial branch of power and its legal effect on the reflection, is refined in laws and procedural codes. Now the issue of the constitutional foundations of justice in Ukraine and their impact on the judiciary is considered in a significant amount of research in the field of science of constitutional law of Ukraine. The corresponding trend and the relevance of the question of the constitutional principles of justice are due to the constant development of constitutionalism and the process of reform of the judiciary in Ukraine. However, it must be concluded, that the constitutional foundations of judiciary, which are presented in art.129 of the Constitution of Ukraine is the basis of the foundations and principles of ...

This article bounce off the framework of lawyer's movement and aims to describe the power of social media. Media is very important and strong pillar of any state stability which activated to all civil society for the restoration of judiciary and supremacy of Law. This is an analytical descriptive type qualitative research mainly literature review highlight the case study. It finds out that social media is major aspect which helped and facilitate this social movement .For free democratisation judicial actors can play very important roll but electronic media is very helpful for this. The cooperative lawyer's movement and strong civil society approach can bring a positive change in the judicial system. It suggest that political intervention must be evaded in prompt obligation and progress rules for make safe more lawful judiciary.

The essay takes up and discusses the different meanings of the term democracy, analyzes the concept of "interpretance" and reflects on the political neutrality of the judiciary. The introduction of external requirements transforms the way of looking at the Constitution, implying a shift from the Constituent Power to the Constituent Power. The conclusion is that democracy seems to seek its legitimacy no longer through the political constitution and its guardians, but through the potential communicative means that are grouped around society's different means of communication.