Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Rule of Law, and the Separation of Powers

2016 ◽  
pp. 264-282
Author(s):  
Marianne Ojo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Environment Impact ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

This chapter is aimed at highlighting how common law has evolved over the centuries, namely through the flexibility accorded to judicial precedents, as well as through the evolutionary nature evidenced in the processes and rules applied in statutory interpretation. In addition to illustrating how informational asymmetries can be mitigated through de centralization, facilitated with courts employing the use of non-legal agents such as expert witnesses - as evidenced in the Daubert case, Pepper v Hart also illustrates how common law has evolved through the scope and permissibility of aids to statutory interpretation. Whilst financial markets and changes in the environment impact legislators, and whilst it is widely accepted that legislation constitutes the supreme form of law, the necessity for judges to introduce a certain level of flexibility will also contribute towards ensuring that legitimate expectations of involved parties are achieved - particularly where the construction of the words within a statute gives rise to considerable ambiguity. By way of reference to landmark rulings in the United States, cases such as Daubert and The Estate of Edgar A. Berg v. Commissioner, this paper also aims to illustrate the vital role increasingly assumed by non-legal actors, and why this approach should constitute a trend to be adopted in European common and civil law jurisdictions. This being the case given the failures and flaws of references to Parliamentary material and whether these should be permitted as an aid to the construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure, as illustrated in the case of Pepper v Hart.

Introduction The Birth and Growth of Judicial Review in the Civil Law World

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The United Kingdom

This book is about the stunning birth and growth of judicial review in the civil law world, since 1945. In Volume I of this two-volume series, I showed that judicial review was born and grew in common law G-20 constitutional democracies and in Israel primarily: (1) when there is a need for a federalism or a separation of powers umpire, (2) when there is a rights from wrongs dynamic, (3) when there is borrowing, and (4) when the political structure of a country’s institutions leaves space within which the judiciary can operate. The countries discussed in Volume I were the following: (1) the United States, (2) Canada, (3) Australia, (4) India, (5) Israel, (6) South Africa, and (7) the United Kingdom....

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Considering Precedent in Louisiana: Balancing the Value of Predictable and Certain Interpretation with the Tradition of Flexibility and Adaptability

2013 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Mary Garvey Algero
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Common Law ◽  
New York State ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
The Common ◽  
Judicial Opinions ◽  
The Right

Despite the fundamental differences between the doctrines employed in common law and civil law (or mixed) jurisdictions when it comes to the respect paid to prior court decisions and their weight or value, United States courts that follow the common law doctrine of stare decisis have embraced some of the flexibility inherent in the civil law doctrine, and civil law and mixed jurisdictions throughout the world, including Louisiana, that use the doctrine of jurisprudence constante seem to have come to value the predictability and certainty that come with the common law doctrine. This Article suggests that Louisiana courts are striking the right balance between valuing the predictability and certainty of interpretation that comes with a healthy respect for precedent and maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law by not strictly considering precedent a source of law. This Article discusses the results of an ongoing examination of the sources of law and the value of precedent in Louisiana. The examination involves a study of Louisiana legislation, Louisiana courts’ writings about the sources of law and precedent, and a survey of Louisiana judges. Part of the examination included reviewing Louisiana judicial opinions on various issues to determine if there were differences in valuing precedent based on area of law or topic. It also included reviewing judicial opinions from the United States Supreme Court and New York state courts to compare these courts’ approaches to the use of precedent with those of the Louisiana courts. The article is based on a paper presented to the Third Congress of Mixed Jurisdiction Jurists, which was held in Jerusalem, Israel in June 2011, and the author’s prior writings on the subject.

scholarly journals Oceans Apart?: The Rule of Lenity in Australia and the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-260
Author(s):  
Julian R Murphy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Federal Structure

AbstractOccasionally traced back to Byzantine times, the rule that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly in favor of the subject, also known as the rule of lenity, now finds expression in common law countries across the world. This Article compares the origins and evolution of the rule in Australia and the United States. The comparison is timely because of the current uncertainty in both jurisdictions about the rule's rationale and scope and because of an emerging global trend towards the “constitutionalization” of common law rules of interpretation. In the course of the analysis, various facets of the rule are discussed, including its common law origins; jurisprudential development; purported constitutional foundations; and modifications by state and federal statutes. Tracing the rule's development in each country reveals significant commonalities, but also important differences, in the respective approaches to the interpretation of criminal statutes. Most importantly, despite similarities in the two countries’ constitutional structures, the rule has assumed constitutional significance in the United States but not in Australia. Identification of this marked difference provides an opportunity to reflect on the separation of powers, and the federal structure, of each country.

Perbandingan Sistem Pemerintahan Dalam Sistem Common Law dengan Sistem Civil Law (Studi Sistem Pemerintahan Presidensiil Indonesia Dengan Sistem Pemerintahan Presidensiil Amerika Serikat)

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1617
Author(s):  
Siti Rodhiyah Dwi Istinah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Party System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law System ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Civil Law System

AbstrakMembandingkan sistem pemerintahan presidensiil di Indonesia dalam sistem hukum civil law dengan sistem presidensiil Amerika Serikat (AS) dalam sistem hukum common law, dapat dipahami perkembangan karakteristik sistem ketatanegaraan masing-masing negara. Mengikuti perkembangan pemikiran  founding fathers tentang dasar negara, mereka menyatakan pembentukan negara Republik Indonesia didasarkan atas corak hidup bangsa Indonesia yaitu sistem kekeluargaan dan akan menggunakan sistem pemerintahan yang sesuai dengan corak masyarakatnya. Akan tetapi dengan adanya reformasi pada tahun 1998, penegasan sistem pemerintahan presidensiil disepakati dalam agenda sidang MPR yang membahas tentang perubahan UUD 1945. Dalam pelaksanaan sistem presidensiil di Indonesia yang tumbuh dalam sistem civil law terdapat juga pengaruh common law. Dibuktikan dengan dianutnya prinsip-prinsip parlementarian. Ada upaya purifikasi sistem presidensiil, akan tetapi menjadi perlu pembenahan terutama pada infrastruktur politik dan penataan beberapa Undang-Undang (UU) di bidang politik. Sedangkan sistem pemerintahan presidensiil Amerika Serikat sudah menyatu dalam praktek ketatanegaraannya, karena Amerika Serikat merupakan tanah kelahiran sistem presidensiil dan merupakan contoh ideal karena memenuhi hampir semua kriteria yang ada dalam sistem pemerintahan presidensiil. Ada beberapa kelebihan dan kekurangan  di masing-masing sistem pemerintahan presidensiil antara Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat. Hal ini disebabkan beberapa pengaruh   yang mendukung efektifitas pelaksanaan sistem tersebut antara lain tentang sistem hukum yang mendasarinya, sistem kepartaian, sistem politik dan perkembangan demokrasi yang mewarnai pelaksanaan sistem ketatanegaraannya. Kata kunci: Perbandingan, Sistem Pemerintahan, Common Law, Civil Law, Sistem Pemerintahan Presidensiil AbstractComparing the presidential government system in Indonesia under civil law system with a presidential system of the United States (US) under a common law system, it can be understood from the development of the characteristics of the constitutional system of each country. Following the development of the basic ideas of the founding fathers of the state, they declared the establishment of the Republic of Indonesia based on the style of life of the Indonesian nation that kinship system and will use a system of government in accordance with a pattern of society. However, with the reform in 1998, assertion of presidential government system was agreed on the agenda of the Assembly session that discusses the changes in the Constitution of 1945. In the implementation of the presidential system in Indonesia is growing in the civil law system there is also the influence of the common law. It is proved by the principles espoused of the parliament. There are efforts to purify the presidential system, but it becomes necessary infrastructure improvements, especially in the political and structuring some Act (Act) in politics. While the US system of presidential government are united in the practice of political subdivision, because the United States is the birthplace of the presidential system and is an ideal figure since it meets almost all the criteria that exist in the system of presidential government. There are some advantages and disadvantages of each system of presidential government between Indonesia and the United States. This is due to several influences that support the effective implementation of the system, among others, about the underlying legal system, party system, political system and democratic development that characterizes the implementation of the system of political subdivisions. Keywords: Comparison, System Administration, Common Law, Civil Law, Presidential Government System 

Fundamental Values of Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 24-42
Author(s):  
Richard Lippke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values

This chapter examines the fundamental values that ought to inform criminal procedure. More specifically, it considers what we ideally should want from the rules and procedures that exist in legal jurisdictions throughout the world. Three fundamental values are discussed—human dignity, truth, and fairness—and the ways in which they can be upheld or subverted by criminal justice practices. Illustrations are drawn primarily from the United States, but reference is also made to criminal procedure in other countries, including those in the civil law tradition. The article concludes by analyzing two further candidates for inclusion on the list of fundamental values of criminal procedure: the “effectiveness” of criminal procedure and the value of “expertise” that highlights the distinction between the common law and civil law traditions.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test).  This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

The Rights of Shareholders

1953 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-578
Author(s):  
F. de Sola Canizares
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Capital ◽  
General Survey ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
The Common

We propose here to lay before English-speaking lawyers a general survey of the rights of shareholders in that form of société, which is described in continental law as société anonyme, compagnie anonyme or société par actions; and we shall endeavour to do it in a way which will be easily understood by “common” lawyers. We shall be considering in general continental rights, that is to say, those prevailing in the civil law countries not only of Western Europe but also of Latin America. We shall leave aside the Soviet countries, where the problems of shareholders' rights do not arise in the same way as under the so-called capitalist régimes; it may even be said that in fact there are no sociétés anonymes there with private capital and therefore these problems do not arise in practice. We shall also disregard the law of the United States of America, which lies within the common law framework and is more accessible to English lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document