The Judicial Resolution of Disputes Involving Children and Religion

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. Mumford
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
English Court ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Within the past few years, the English Court of Appeal has ruled in a variety of cases involving disputes about the religious upbringing of children following the separation or divorce of their parents. Many of these cases have not been reported, although the most significant of them, Re R, is well known to family lawyers. In other jurisdictions the European Court of Human Rights in Hoffmann and the Supreme Court of Canada in Young and D.P. v. C.S. have also heard important cases in which a significant factor before the court was the influence of religious beliefs and practices on the children of those who professed them. This article is the result of a study of these and other cases from England, the United States and Canada in order to investigate the reasoning and the trends in judicial decision-making in cases involving children and religion.

The European Court of Human Rights and Transnational Judicial Dialogue

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Zoethout
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Us

AbstractOver the past decade, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems more and more inclined to use foreign sources of law, that is to say, law that does not originate in the Convention itself or in one of the Member States of the Council of Europe. Unlike in the US, there is little discussion in Europe about this form of judicial dialogue in the case-law of the ECtHR. This paper seeks both to clarify transnational dialogue by the ECtHR and find ways to justify this practice, against the backdrop of the American debate on this topic. First, the concept of transnational judicial dialogue is analysed (Part II). Then judicial dialogue as it presents itself in the judgments of the ECtHR is assessed, especially when non-Convention or foreign law is being used in a substantive way (Part III). Subsequently, an attempt is made to define when and why the use of foreign law by the ECtHR can be considered a justifiable approach in judicial decision-making (Part IV). The paper rounds off with some concluding remarks (Part V).

Do Women Judges Make a Difference? An Analysis by Appeal Court Data

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter McCormick ◽  
Twyla Job
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Women Judges ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
Participation Of Women ◽  
General Statistical ◽  
Court Of Appeal

AbstractGiven the recent penetration of the judicial profession by women, and concomitant speculation about the possible impact of women judges upon judicial decision-making, the authors examine criminal appeals to the Alberta Court of Appeal between 1985 and 1992 to address in general statistical terms the parameters of the participation of women judges. The results suggest that there is little statistically identifiable difference in the performance of men and women judges, even on specific issues such as sexual assault offenses, and what modest differences can be found are in the opposite direction from those suggested by comparable research in the United States

scholarly journals The Potential Impact of Indigenous Rights on the International Law of Nationality

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 135-139
Author(s):  
Kirsty Gover
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

International law has long recognized that the power of a state to identify its nationals is a central attribute of sovereignty and firmly within the purview of domestic law. Yet these boundaries may be shifting, in part due to the effect of international human rights norms. In 2011, citizenship scholar Peter Spiro asked, “[w]ill international law colonize th[is] last bastion of sovereign discretion?” Ten years later, this essay reframes the question, asking whether the international law of Indigenous Peoples’ rights will “decolonize” the discretion, by encouraging its exercise in ways that respect and enable Indigenous connections to their traditional land. It considers this possibility in light of two recent cases decided by courts in Australia and Canada, both of which ascribe a distinctive legal status to non-citizen Indigenous persons: Love v. Commonwealth, Thoms v Commonwealth (“Love-Thoms,” Australian High Court) and R. v. Desautel (“Desautel,” British Columbia Court of Appeal, currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada). In each case, the court in question recognized that some Indigenous non-citizens have constitutional rights to remain within the state's territory (and perhaps also a correlative right to enter it), by virtue of their pre-contact ancestral ties to land within the state's borders.

Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canada

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 247-249
Author(s):  
Anna Esselment
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
The United States ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
Judicial Doctrine ◽  
The One ◽  
Central Claim

Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canada, Gerald Baier, Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2006, pp. 207.Is everything old new again? Gerald Baier's insightful book brings back into the mainstream a long neglected examination of federalism from the perspective of judicial review. His analysis of the courts' impact on the development of federalism involves a detailed study of division of powers jurisprudence in the United States, Australia, and Canada. In each of these countries, Baier argues, the decisions of the highest courts continue to affect the shape of federalism, but his central claim turns on how these decisions are made. For Baier, judicial doctrine plays a significant role in influencing the reasoning of the courts and must be considered an independent variable worthy of study in its own right. Many scholars have debated the significance of doctrine on judicial decision making. However, Baier takes issue with scholars who, on the one hand, have characterized doctrine as a tool of objectivity and certainty, and those, on the other hand, who view doctrine as entirely political in nature (27). For Baier, doctrine is neither of these but it is “distinctly legal in character” and it is this legal reasoning that shapes outcomes (27).

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

2. The Court System and Alternative Dispute Resolution

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-40
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
English Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

This chapter discusses the English court system, civil disputes, and alternative dispute resolution. The courts in England and Wales form a hierarchy. At the lowest level are the Magistrates’ Courts and the County Courts, then the Crown Court and High Court, then the Court of Appeal, and finally the Supreme Court. The chapter considers the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in interpreting EU law within Member States. It explains the position of the European Court of Human Rights, which deals with allegations of state breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Civil disputes arise in every area of business. An explanation of the civil procedure rules from commencing a claim to enforcement of a court judgment is provided. The chapter concludes with a discussion of alternative methods of dispute resolution including arbitration, mediation, and conciliation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document