Regulating Access to the National Courts

2022 ◽  
pp. 803-850
Keyword(s):  
National Courts

The Puzzling Paradox Presented within the African Supranational Judicial Institutions: The ECOWAS Court of Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 86-109
Author(s):  
Kehinde Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
West African ◽  
African Region ◽  
The West ◽  
Political Will ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
West African Region

The judgments of the ECOWAS Court, which are final and immediately binding, are vital for the realisation of ECOWAS aims and objectives. The enforcement of its judgments is particularly important in the case of individuals whose enjoyment of fundamental human rights, as guaranteed under the ECOWAS Community laws, is dependent on effective enforcement. Yet, an existential puzzling paradox emanates through a poor record in the implementation of the ECOWAS Court's judgments. This problem, which is not limited to the West African region deserves scrutiny and concrete proposals. Legal and political considerations surface in assessing the existence of this paradox, and despite the lack of a consistent political will, to implement the decisions of ECOWAS Court relevant judicial actors have roles to play. National courts could take a bolder approach in complementing the work of the ECOWAS Court. The ECOWAS Court itself could put in place concrete mechanisms and adopt certain practices to address this poor record of non-implementation. It is yet to be seen how substantive mechanisms would work in practice.

The Internationalization Of Human Rights And The Importance Of Normative Dialogues Between International And National Courts

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
Mariane Morato Stival ◽  
Marcos André Ribeiro ◽  
Daniel Gonçalves Mendes da Costa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Human Rights Discourse

This article intends to analyze in the context of the complexity of the process of internationalization of human rights, the definitions and tensions between cultural universalism and relativism, the essence of human rights discourse, its basic norms and an analysis of the normative dialogues in case decisions involving violations of human rights in international tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and national courts. The well-established dialogue between courts can bring convergences closer together and remove differences of opinion on human rights protection. A new dynamic can occur through a complementarity of one court with respect to the other, even with the different characteristics between the legal orders.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Standards for Independent Oversight

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Point Of Departure

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.

National Legislatures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Cope ◽  
Hooman Movassagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Comparative Analyses ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
National Legislatures

One critique of some common-law comparative legal academies is their intensively “court-centric” focus, which, some believe, “marginalize[s]” the role of the legislative branch. The same may be said of the extant comparative international law literature: most of it concerns the interpretive approaches of national courts. In fact, one of the field’s seminal pieces characterizes comparative international law as involving “comparative analyses of various domestic court decisions.” Not surprisingly, then, nearly all of this volume’s contributions deal mostly or exclusively with courts and judicial decisions. We agree that courts can play a large part in diversifying how international law works across different systems, but we contend that the foundation of the comparative international law project lies elsewhere. We argue that among the most important and underappreciated interpretative acts—and therefore, those currently most needing study—are the international law interpretations of national legislatures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document