Contrasting Emission Trading in the eu and China: An Exploration of the Role of the Courts

Climate Law ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 197-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjan Peeters ◽  
Huizhen Chen ◽  
Zhiping Li
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Emission Trading ◽  
Emission Trading Scheme ◽  
Court System ◽  
Governance System ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Trading Scheme

China and the eu have both engaged in formulating climate laws in order to contribute to a global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The focus of both is on emission trading. This instrument is designed and implemented according to very different political and legal systems in China and the eu. The rule of law in the eu is understood to mean that access to the judicial system for those affected by the emission-trading scheme is crucial. This can be illustrated by the emergence of a large body of case law on the issue. China, by contrast, is still in the process of building a governance system based on the rule of law, and thereby faces the challenge of setting up a court system that will act independently of a powerful government. While in the eu industries may launch a legal action in order to acquire a more profitable position on the allocation of emission allowances, in China it is still an open question whether industries covered by the emission-trading scheme will be permitted to take their case to court. How does this difference affect the functioning of the instrument in the two jurisdictions? In the eu, so far, the environmental effectiveness of the emission-trading scheme does not appear to have been negatively impacted by court proceedings initiated by industry. While the powerful role of the government in environmental protection in China could be valuable for the achievement of environmental aims, weak judicial control of governmental action could mean either a strict implementation of emission reductions or a lenient approach that tolerates a flexible, less ambitious, implementation.

The Phantom Wahhabi: Liberalism and the Muslim fanatic in mid-Victorian India

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIA STEPHENS
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Security ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
British Colonial ◽  
The Government ◽  
Colonial Government ◽  
Anglo Indian

AbstractIn the late 1860s and early 1870s the British colonial government in India suppressed an imagined Wahhabi conspiracy, which it portrayed as a profound threat to imperial security. The detention and trial of Amir and Hashmadad Khan—popularly known as the Great Wahhabi Case—was the most controversial of a series of public trials of suspected Wahhabis. The government justified extra-judicial arrests and detentions as being crucial to protect the empire from anti-colonial rebels inspired by fanatical religious beliefs. The government's case against the Khan brothers, however, was exceptionally weak. Their ongoing detention sparked a sustained public debate about the balance between executive authority and the rule of law. In newspapers and pamphlets published in India and Britain, Indian journalists and Anglo-Indian lawyers argued that arbitrary police powers posed a greater threat to public security than religious fanatics. In doing so, they embraced a language of liberalism which emphasized the rule of law and asserted the role of public opinion as a check on government despotism. Debates about the Great Wahhabi Case demonstrate the ongoing contest between authoritarian and liberal strands of imperial ideology, even at the height of the panic over the intertwined threat of Indian sedition and fanatical Islam.

scholarly journals Procedural fairness and the legitimacy of laws in Hungary: An empirical analysis

Sociologija ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 662-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsolt Boda ◽  
Gergő Medve-Bálint
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Conservative Party ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Economic Problems ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legitimacy Beliefs

The 2010 election in Hungary resulted in the victory of Fidesz, a conservative party which acquired a comfortable majority in the parliament and used it to initiate a number of important policy reforms. However, there are good reasons to think that both the way these reforms were adopted and their content violated a number of procedural fairness norms, such as participation in decision making and even some aspects of the rule of law. According to David Beetham, Tom Tyler and others, legitimacy is dependent on moral evaluations concerning the ruling power, and among those evaluations, perceptions of the procedural fairness being exercised by the authorities are of a crucial importance. If the theory holds, then the legitimacy of Fidesz?s rule would have eroded over the years, and indeed this is what happened, by 2012 trust in the government and in political institutions has dropped to the levels seen before the 2010 elections. But since economic problems have persisted, we cannot say whether this drop was caused by discontent with governmental performance or procedural fairness or both. Our research aims at investigating the role of procedural fairness in the formation of legitimacy beliefs. Our preliminary analysis suggest that moral evaluations and, more particularly, procedural fairness expectations do have an effect on people?s legitimacy believes in the Hungarian context as well.

scholarly journals RATIO LEGIS PRZEDAWNIENIA

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
Tomasz Pałdyna
Keyword(s):  
Interest Rates ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Common Element ◽  
Court System ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
High Interest ◽  
Almost All

Ratio legis of Limitation of ClaimsSummaryA common element of the works on limitation of material claims is the analysis of its justification. This has its reasons: limitation of claims evokes serious doubts of ethical nature. It often happens that the protection is rejected to an entitled person, even in a situation when the debtor confirms his obligation, claiming at the same time the lapse of the period of prescription. Due to this, objections are formulated that limitation of claims authorises immoral behaviours, undermines the validity of law, weakens the role of law in a society, infringes the rule of law as well that it collides with a common sense of justness and the logic of the protection of exclusive rights. Notwithstanding the above limitation of claims exists in almost all civil law systems, therefore, it seems to be justifiable. The reasons for introducing this legal means into the system of civil law are discussed in this paper.The aim of limitation of claims is the protection of the defendant in the proceedings because of the difficulties with presenting evidence for a claim which came into being many years before. Retaining such claims is contrary to the interests of the court system because the proceedings initiated after many years could lead to accidental verdicts. Moreover maintaining a certain status may create its legality due to the principle of security of law. Furthermore, delayed persuing claims may be a form of earning money out of the statute interest with high interest rates, which is not desirable.The analysis presented in this paper allows a conclusion that limitation of claims has mammy functions: protective, cleansing, stabilising and animating. The proposed division is of an arranging nature as it stresses the main functions of limitation of claims and its role in trade.

scholarly journals Immigration Adjudication: The Missing “Rule of Law”

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenni B. Benson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Court System ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
The Government

The United States spends more than $19 billion each year on border and immigration enforcement.1 The Obama administration removed more people in eight years than the last four administrations combined.2 Yet, to the Trump administration, enforcement is not yet robust enough. Among other measures, the administration favors more expedited and summary removals. More than 80 percent3 of all removal orders are already issued outside the court process: When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses summary removal processes, both access to counsel and an immigration judge can be nearly impossible. Advocates and policy analysts are equally concerned that a backlog of over 545,000 immigration court cases creates delay that harm people seeking asylum and other humanitarian protection. Recent use of priority or “rocket” dockets in immigration court and lack of appointed counsel also interfere with the fair adjudication of claims. Thus the administrative removal system is criticized both for being inefficient and moving too slowly, on the one hand, and for moving too quickly without adequate procedural safeguards, on the other. Both critiques have merit. The challenge is to design, implement, and most critically, maintain an appropriately balanced adjudication system. While it is clear that US removal procedures need reform, process alone will not be able to address some of the systematic flaws within the system. Ultimately, the DHS will need to refine and prioritize the cases that are placed into the system and the government needs new tools, widely used in other adjudication systems, that can reduce backlogs, incentivize cooperation, and facilitate resolution. Congress should similarly reexamine the barriers to status and avenues for regularization or preservation of status. The paucity of equitable forms or relief and the lack of statutes of limitation place stress on the immigration court system. The lack of appointed counsel has a dramatic impact on case outcomes. Without counsel, the rule of law is barely a constraint on government authority. Conversely, a system of appointed counsel could lead to efficiencies and to a culture of negotiation and settlement within the immigration court system. DHS has increasingly used every tool in its arsenal to expeditiously remove people from the United States and most of these tools bypass judicial hearings. In these “ministerial” or expedited forms of removal, there is no courtroom, there is no administrative judge, and there are rarely any opportunities for legal counsel to participate. Moreover, there is rarely an opportunity for federal judicial review. In these settings, the rule of law is entirely within the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers who serve as both prosecutor and judge. There is little record keeping and almost no avenue for administrative or judicial review. This paper will argue that the rule of law is missing in the US removal adjudication system, and will propose ways in which it can be restored.

Governance quality and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: the dynamic panel model

2022 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amsalu Bedemo Beyene
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Government Effectiveness ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Governance Quality ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Government

PurposeThe main objective of this article is to analyze the role of governance quality in influencing the economic growth of 22 selected Sub-Saharan African Countries.Design/methodology/approachThe study applied the panel dynamic Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to analyze the data obtained from the World Bank database over the period from 2002 to 2020.FindingsThe overall finding indicated that the composite governance index has a positive significant effect on the economic growth of the countries; where a unit improvement in the aggregate governance index leads to a 3.05% increase in GDP. The disaggregated result has shown that corruption control and government effectiveness have a negative significant effect on growth performance, whereas, the rule of law and regulatory quality showed a positive significant effect. Political stability and voice and accountability have an insignificant effect on economic growth.Research limitations/implicationsDue to data limitations, this study could not address the whole members of Sub Sahara African Countries and could not see the causal relationship.Practical implicationsThe study suggested a strong commitment to the implementation of policy and reform measures on all governance factors. This may add to the need to devise participatory corruption control mechanisms; to closely look at the proper implementation of policies and reforms that constitute the government effectiveness factors, and properly implement the rule of law at all levels of the government with a strong commitment to realizing it so that citizens at all levels can have full confidence in and abide by the rules of society.Originality/valueEven though there are some studies conducted using conventional methods of panel data analysis such as random effect or fixed effects, this empirical study used more advanced panel dynamic generalized moment of methods to examine the role of improvement in governance quality on economic growth.

The role of the English courts in alternative dispute resolution

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 666-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
AKC Koo
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Court System ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Administration ◽  
Alternative Processes ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to examine the interaction between the court and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the legal administration of civil justice. It addresses the following questions. What is the relationship between ADR and the concept of justice? How do we make sense of the anti-ADR views, in particular the serious threat to the rule of law? What role does, and should, the court play in alternative processes? It argues that integrating ADR into the court system broadens the notion of justice and its access, and that, under the rule of law, judges should play a more central role to ensure the use, quality and integrity of alternative processes. This paper extends our understanding of the relationship among justice, ADR and the court from an internal perspective. It also points out the need to expand the case management responsibilities of judges, and their delegates in the Online Court, on ADR.

scholarly journals Law compliance and enforcement in doing business to follow the rule of law in the market economy of Viet Nam

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 478-487
Author(s):  
Vien The Giang
Keyword(s):  
Market Economy ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Doing Business ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Role Of The Government ◽  
And Control

Based on the theory of agency problem and the relation between the government and market, this paper analyzes and evaluates the practice of law compliance and enforcement in doing business of enterprises. It is necessary to strengthen the law compliance and enforcement to enterprises, thereby ensuring the rule of law in business organization and operations. The results show that the regime of legal representative significantly affects the law compliance and enforcement of enterprises. In addition, the role of the government in enacting, modifying, and enforcing law of investment or doing business can negatively affect the the law compliance and enforcement of enterprises. Therefore, it is of importance to design a legal framework to monitor the behavior of legal representatives of enterprises and control the unreasonable intervention of the government in relationships in a market economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document