A judgment of one's own? Staking a claim to judicial authority 1

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-114
Author(s):  
Kcasey McLoughlin
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Authority

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

scholarly journals Judicial authority, legitimacy and the (international) rule of law as essentially contested and interpretive concepts: Introduction to the special issue

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-90
Author(s):  
KNUT TRAISBACH
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
Final Point ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
International Rule

AbstractBeyond setting the stage, the Introduction makes three claims about the conceptual triangle of the rule of law, judicial authority and legitimacy. The first is that all three are essentially contested and interpretive concepts in the sense of Walter B. Gallie and Ronald Dworkin. In their expositions, the contested and interpretative nature of such concepts is nothing to be ‘solved’, rather the formulation of different conceptions and contestation about them are central functions of such concepts. The interpretive and essentially contested nature points us to the relevant ‘actors’ and to conflicts and trade-offs between contested competencies. Thus the second point is that arguments about the rule of law and judicial legitimacy are often a means of questioning or securing the authority of a particular actor or institution in relation to other actors and institutions. The final point is that transposing concepts from the domestic to the supranational is a constructive endeavour because it entails creating new conceptions and substituting old ones as well as legitimising new authorities and delegitimising old ones. Thus, this special issue also cautions against discourses that ultimately are more about legitimation than about legitimacy and more about new ways of ruling than the rule of law.

scholarly journals A transnational judicial public sphere as an idea and ideology: Critical reflections on judicial dialogue and its legitimizing potential

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-207
Author(s):  
KNUT TRAISBACH
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Critical Potential ◽  
Normative Significance ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Critical Reflections

AbstractThis article sheds a critical light on judicial dialogue when its purpose and meaning are taken beyond cross-fertilization and comparative reasoning. It cautions against a conceptualization of judicial dialogue as a means to foster commonalities between courts and to legitimize judicial governance. The argument develops from an idealized notion of a ‘transnational judicial public sphere’. In this sphere, domestic, regional and international courts ideally form common opinions through dialogue and pursue common purposes. The danger of this understanding is to construct a new paradigm that not only overlooks important differences in the interest, influence and opinion of courts, but also overstates the socio-normative significance of exchanges between courts and of judicial governance in general. The critical potential of judicial dialogues lies less in the formation of commonalities or in the legitimization of judicial authority than in bringing alternatives and a plurality of opinions to the fore.

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Sandra Botero ◽  
Rachel Ellett ◽  
Thomas M. Keck ◽  
Stephan Stohler
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The growth of judicial power globally has renewed scholarly debates about who benefits from increased judicial authority. Using original data, we examine the full universe of constitutional free expression decisions issued by three apex courts—in Colombia, India, and South Africa—across three categories of disputes that feature a diverse array of rights claimants. By so doing, we shed light on the limits of elite-driven accounts of judicial empowerment. We find that even where constitutional courts are empowered by elites seeking to advance their own interests, activist courts can develop a practice of rights-protection that benefits a diverse range of less powerful actors. Moreover, regardless of whether the speech claimants are elite or non-elite actors, these three apex courts regularly rule in favor of free expression for dissenting or unorthodox speech acts. In sum, where issues are peripheral to the governing regime’s core interests, relatively powerless actors are sometimes able to use legal processes to advance their rights and interests.

Understanding, significance and legal methods of solution of disputes related to sports

ANCIENT LAND ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (04) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Elcan Elman oğlu Həsənli ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Amateur Athletes ◽  
Sports Organizations ◽  
Sports Arbitration ◽  
Judicial Authority

Sports has become an increasingly important and professionalized sector in our age. The increase in the number of professional and amateur athletes as well as sports organizations in the historical process has brought about an increase in the number of national and international competitions. Parallel to this development, conflicts related to sports have also increased and these conflicts have to be resolved in accordance with the sport's own body. Indeed, settling the disputes that arise especially in international competitions as soon as possible will affect the fate of the competitions. However, the existence of many organizations operating in this field and the inconsistencies that emerged between their decisions and practices increased the need for uniformity in this area. As a judicial authority to meet this need, CAS has undertaken this job. Although the CAS has not closed its door to other alternative dispute resolution methods, it has come to the fore especially with the advantages it provides arbitration. CAS has fulfilled its duty to settle the disputes arising from sports law in a swift and fair manner with the decisions it has made so far. Keywords: Sports law, sports-related disputes, mediation, sports arbitration, CAS

scholarly journals Judging the Judge in Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 567-584
Author(s):  
Clare Sandford-Couch
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Fourteenth Century ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Historical Understanding ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Insight Into

Taking an interdisciplinary approach the article offers a fresh legal historical understanding of the Fifth Story of the Eighth Day in Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron. Detailed analysis of the tale reveals much about the realities of the administration of justice in fourteenth century Florence and contemporary expectations of those exercising judicial authority. In making apparent the expectation that judges would look and act in a certain manner, the article suggests that Boccaccio’s story can be interpreted as offering an insight into the extent to which public perception of a man’s identity as a judge was dependent upon his appearance and attire.

Evolution of the Roman Republican Senate: Composition, Election, and Judicial functions (Part 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-77
Author(s):  
L. L. Kofanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
Supreme Council ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Gradual Transformation

The paper deals with the Roman senatus in the period from 5th to 3rd century BC, from the point of view of its composition, completion and selected competences. As to its composition, in the most arcaic times of the Roman state, the senate was an assembly of the heads of clans (patres gentium), who represented the ideas of patricians. The autor presents gradual transformation of the composition of the senate and switch towards the inclusion of the plebeians. It describes also the process of the cooptation of the members, rules of which incurred fundamental changes from the hereditary principles to the regulation given by statutes. A significant part of the article is devoted to the judicial functions of the Senate and the relationship between the iudicium senatus and the iudicium populi, the transformation of the Senate court from a regional body to the highest, global court of the entire Mediterranean. It’s noted that if the original Roman Senate de iure was the judicial authority only one of the Latin Confederation, later after 338 BC, it becomes the Supreme court of the Latin Union, and by the end of the Republic is transformed into the «Supreme Council of the world».

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document