Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 335-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Miller ◽  
Kai Ambos
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The Common ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
And Function

AbstractThe confirmation procedure is the linking interface between the investigation and trial of a case before the ICC; it is triggered by the arrival of the suspect at the court. The present paper distinguishes between the different phases of the ICC procedure and the different notions for the person concerned; it deals, in particular, with the issue of a proprio motu amendment of the charges by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The comparative survey reveals that while the principle "iura novit curia" is widely recognized in civil law countries, it is rarely accepted in the ambit of the common law. Notwithstanding, the ICC is committed to this principle, as clearly evidenced by Regulation 55 which allows the Trial Chamber to change the legal characterization of the facts during trial. As long as the rights of the person charged are observed, the same should apply in the confirmation procedure.

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2006 ◽  
pp. 968-1002
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

Unjustified enrichment confronted both civil and common lawyers with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed. The recognition of unjustified enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in English law created a new arena of uncertainty between the systems. This article argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment. It may help to uncover the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

The Appeals Decision in the ICC's Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the Trial Chamber's ‘Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecution's List of Evidence’

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 511-520
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE SCHUON
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Common

AbstractWhen, on 3 May 2011, the Appeals Chamber reversed the decision of Trial Chamber III in the Bemba case that had admitted material on a list of the prosecution into evidence, it addressed various central issues related to the admission of evidence under the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (inter alia, the orality principle). The present article critically analyses both decisions. In particular, it views the Trial Chamber's approach that envisages a multi-tiered process of admitting evidence, in light of the approaches of civil law and common law, and expresses concerns about uncertainties and protraction that may result. As the Court's legal framework does not determine that the processing of evidence follow either the civil-law or the common-law model, this is left for the trial chambers to decide in each case. In determining the preferable approach for each respective case, consideration of the procedural context is key. The Appeals Chamber decision allows for the required leeway of the trial chambers in regulating the processing of evidence, to adopt a way that fits the particular circumstances best.

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2019 ◽  
pp. 960-993
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

The emergence of unjust enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in England and Australia sparked a remarkable debate between, on the one hand, civil and common lawyers, who were confronted with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed, and, on the other hand, between common lawyers inter se about the merits of the various ways in which unjust enrichment may be understood and organized. At the heart of this debate was the struggle of the common law to confront and deal with the deficit caused by its reliance solely on ‘unjust factors’ to make sense of enrichment liability without taking account of the notion of ‘absence of basis’. This chapter argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment by uncovering the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

Is Style of Reasoning a Fundamental Difference Between the Common Law and the Civil Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals A Rubisco-binding protein is required for normal pyrenoid number and starch sheath morphology inChlamydomonas reinhardtii

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (37) ◽  
pp. 18445-18454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan K. Itakura ◽  
Kher Xing Chan ◽  
Nicky Atkinson ◽  
Leif Pallesen ◽  
Lianyong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Binding Motif ◽  
Starch Granules ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Bisphosphate Carboxylase ◽  
Biophysical Mechanism ◽  
Mechanism Function ◽  
And Function

A phase-separated, liquid-like organelle called the pyrenoid mediates CO2fixation in the chloroplasts of nearly all eukaryotic algae. While most algae have 1 pyrenoid per chloroplast, here we describe a mutant in the model algaChlamydomonasthat has on average 10 pyrenoids per chloroplast. Characterization of the mutant leads us to propose a model where multiple pyrenoids are favored by an increase in the surface area of the starch sheath that surrounds and binds to the liquid-like pyrenoid matrix. We find that the mutant’s phenotypes are due to disruption of a gene, which we call StArch Granules Abnormal 1 (SAGA1) because starch sheath granules, or plates, in mutants lacking SAGA1 are more elongated and thinner than those of wild type. SAGA1 contains a starch binding motif, suggesting that it may directly regulate starch sheath morphology. SAGA1 localizes to multiple puncta and streaks in the pyrenoid and physically interacts with the small and large subunits of the carbon-fixing enzyme Rubisco (ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase), a major component of the liquid-like pyrenoid matrix. Our findings suggest a biophysical mechanism by which starch sheath morphology affects pyrenoid number and CO2-concentrating mechanism function, advancing our understanding of the structure and function of this biogeochemically important organelle. More broadly, we propose that the number of phase-separated organelles can be regulated by imposing constraints on their surface area.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document