scholarly journals An Assessment of Right to Fair Trial Under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: A Comparative Study of the US and Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol V (IV) ◽  
pp. 31-39
Author(s):  
Bakht Munir ◽  
Ali Nawaz Khan ◽  
Naveed Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
New Methods ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Speedy Trial ◽  
Made In

Right to fair trial is considered as the basic right affirmed by Islam and recognised by different international documents i.e., ICCPR, UDHR, etc. In Pakistan, the notion of fair trial has been incorporated through Article 10-A through 18th constitutional amendment. The two amendments were made in the US Constitution in 18th and 19th century i.e., 6th and 14th amendments which safeguards right to speedy trial, impartial jury, public trial and equal protection of law. The Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013, permits the use of new methods in collection of evidence and also bridles arbitrary powers from being used. However, being dissimilar to the essence of the Constitution, 21st Amendment was made to adopt Pakistan Army Act, 2015 in order to control the extremism. The key purpose of the article is to assess how far the efforts for the enforcement of right to fair trial in Pakistan are sufficient?

Determining the Legitimacy of Laws That Use Racial/Ethnic Classifications

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger J.R. Levesque
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Equal Opportunities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Government ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Under the US Constitution, the government must ensure that individuals receive the equal protection of laws. This mandate, however, becomes challenging in that equal protection may be different depending on the involved individuals and circumstances. This chapter examines the general parameters of how the legal system addresses claims alleging violations of rights, such as those involving differential treatment based on race. The analysis demonstrates when discrimination exists in law and, equally important, discusses what is needed to envision ways to reach societal interests relating to equal opportunities and equal treatment. The chapter concludes by noting how these legal developments influence the potential relevance and utility of empirical evidence.

Sectarian identity and the aim of integration

1996 ◽  
Vol 85 (02) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eberhard Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Early History ◽  
Basic Information ◽  
Late 19Th Century ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Made In ◽  
Sectarian Identity

AbstractBasic information on the history of vaccination and anti-vaccinationism in the US and Germany is followed by discussion of the various opportunities for homeopaths to assess vaccination and the different assessments made in the early history of homoeopathy. Attitudes to vaccination are explored in American homoeopathic publications (books, selected journals, family medical guides). American homoeopathy is shown to have tended toward integration with conventional medicine rather than criticism of and opposition to it. Late 19th century American homoeopathy is shown to have been influenced by non-homoeopathic ideas. It did, however, have some characteristic ways of focusing on diseases, especially chronic diseases and their treatment in a specifically homoeopathic way, with homoeopathic physicians thinking in terms of ‘constitution’ and showing therapeutic optimism.

scholarly journals Is “Constitutional Veneration” an Obstacle to Constitutional Amendment?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Christopher T. Dawes ◽  
James R. Zink
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
The Us ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
Us Constitution

Abstract Some constitutional scholars suggest that the US Constitution stands as one of the oldest yet least changed national constitutions in part because Americans’ tendency to “revere” the Constitution has left them unwilling to consider significant changes to the document. Several recent studies support aspects of this claim, but no study establishes a direct link between individuals’ respect for the Constitution and their reluctance to amend it. To address this, we replicate and extend the research design of Zink and Dawes (2016) across two survey experiments. The key difference in our experiments is we include measures of respondents’ propensity to revere the Constitution, which in turn allows us to more directly test whether constitutional veneration translates into resistance to amendment. Our results build on Zink and Dawes’s findings and show that, in addition to institutional factors, citizens’ veneration of the Constitution can act as a psychological obstacle to constitutional amendment.

scholarly journals An American Notwithstanding Clause? Between Potestas and Potentia

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Boleslaw Z. Kabala ◽  
Rainey Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
American People ◽  
Baruch Spinoza ◽  
Joint Declaration ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Accepted Practice

Debates about judicial review and departmentalism have continued to rage, and in the wake of the last three Supreme Court appointments and current Presidential Commission on the Court, only look to intensify. Should the US adopt a notwithstanding or override provision, of the kind that exits in Canada and Israel? These countries take a departmentalist approach to allow the legislature to override the Court, “notwithstanding” its ruling. Although America is a presidential framework, a paradox emerges: evidence exists that its system already makes possible the equivalent of a notwithstanding clause. This consists of Congress and the President together “overruling” the Supreme Court. In another sense, however, this is not an accepted practice—large parts of the legal community hold that the US Constitution establishes judicial supremacy. To better understand this dynamic, we consider two kinds of power: formal and authorized (potestas) as well as direct and concrete (potentia). The contrast between the positions on both power and sovereignty of Thomas Hobbes (associated with potestas) and Baruch Spinoza (linked to potentia) helps clarify these issues in a contemporary context. It turns out that a robust departmentalist equivalent of the notwithstanding clause already exists in the US, as a matter of Hobbesian potestas but not of Spinozist potentia. Another term for the latter is pouvoir constituant. Spinoza’s perspective on political activity further clarifies the in-between nature of the American override capacity: the active or passive character of a multitude is not binary, but is a matter of degree. Without making an institutional recommendation, we note that Spinoza’s understanding of power also allows for dynamic interaction between potentia and potestas: formal authorization can contribute to the expression of direct power. It is, therefore, conceivable that additional codification of the existing American override capacity, either through a joint declaration of Congress and the Presidency or a Constitutional Amendment, can strengthen the effective sovereignty of the American people in relation to the courts.

Frederick Douglass and the Power of Humility

Humility ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 298-322
Author(s):  
David J. Bobb
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Frederick Douglass ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
William Lloyd Garrison ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Service To Others ◽  
Physical Resistance ◽  
The Relationship

The life of ex-slave and leading 19th-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass is a study in the relationship between humiliation, humility, and healthy pride. Surrounded by the humiliating degradations of slavery as a young man, Douglass realized that arrogance, or unhealthy pride, is the main force motivating those who enslave other human beings. This realization helped steel him for the intellectual, moral, and physical resistance that was necessary for him to find freedom. As Douglass fought for equality for himself and for others, he came to understand the necessity of healthy pride. The more he nourished a healthy pride in himself, the more he was able to humble himself in service to others. Morally, Douglass showed humility in forgiving his former slave owners. Intellectually, Douglass showed humility in his break with William Lloyd Garrison over the interpretation of the US Constitution. Politically, Douglass’s views counseled national humility, not hubris.

The Rights of the Accused under the Rome Statute and the US Bill of Rights: Has 20 Years of ICC Jurisprudence Brought Those Together?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-366
Author(s):  
Kacper Zajac
Keyword(s):  
Rome Statute ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Disclosure Obligations ◽  
Made In

Abstract The alleged lower standard of the rights of the accused under the Rome Statute compared to those guaranteed by the US Constitution was one of the most important areas of criticism of the Rome Statute by American scholars. This criticism was made in the early 2000s and was based on the text of the Rome Statute alone, before any ICC jurisprudence existed. This article draws on the 20 years of operation of the ICC to ascertain whether the judicial interpretation and application of the procedural rights of the defendant, guaranteed under the Rome Statute, have made them more compatible with their counterparts under the US Constitution. The premise of this article is that the 20 years of interpretation and application of those rights may have strengthened them to the point where the gap between the procedural guarantees under the Rome Statute and the US Constitution has become negligible. This, in turn, would make the early criticism of the ICC system obsolete, at least insofar as the legal argument is concerned. Accordingly, this paper examines existing jurisprudence of the ICC in the areas of prosecutorial disclosure obligations, admission of evidence and the examination of witnesses. This is for several reasons: firstly, the selected three rights were among those criticised by American scholars in the early 2000s as falling short of what was required under the US Constitution; secondly, unlike some other criticised rights, which reflect the ICC’s institutional design and, therefore, are unlikely to change in scope, the selected three are relatively vaguely phrased, thus making it possible to transform their meaning through judicial interpretation; thirdly, the selected rights have been sufficiently elaborated on by the ICC through case law so as to carry a meaning exceeding what the Rome Statute alone provides. The findings of the study indicate that inasmuch as the ICC’s jurisprudence has moved some aspects of the three areas under examination towards their counterparts under the US Constitution, the procedural rights of the defendant before American courts generally remain more robust.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document