scholarly journals Crown act of state and detention in Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Jane Rooney
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

The Serdar Mohammed litigation signalled a decisive change in judicial attitude towards scrutiny of extraterritorial executive action in armed conflict. The most significant indicator of a change in judicial attitude was the reinstatement of the act of state doctrine in the private law claim in tort. Act of state bars tort claims against the Crown when the Crown acts outside of its territory. The UK Supreme Court characterised act of state as a non-justiciability doctrine. The article argues that the UK Supreme Court exercised extreme deference in its adjudication of the act of state in the private law claim. This deference was then mirrored in the reasoning employed in the public law claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, departing from international and domestic standards on detention in armed conflict.

Transplanting Irrationality from Public to Private Law: Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Himsworth
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Discretionary Powers

For many years, similarities have been noticed between the motivations for, and the methods of, controlling the exercise of discretionary powers on the one hand, in public law and, on the other hand, in contract law. There has, however, been much disagreement about how far the two processes should aligned, and whether the grounds of review in public law should be extended into the contractual domain. In Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, the UK Supreme Court sought a high degree of alignment through the adoption, in a contractual dispute, of public law standards of reasonableness. This article offers a critique of the Court's arguments in the case and its consequences for contract law.

A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, before the UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether a court order granting anonymity to a convicted and deported foreign national sex offender could remain in place, notwithstanding objections from BBC (Scotland). In answering the question, the Court articulated what it referred to as the common law principle of open justice, which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The Problem of the Non-justiciability of Religious Defamations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

English courts have historically been wary of deciding cases that rest on contested findings of fact about the practices and doctrines of religions. This is particularly true in defamation cases. However, the recent case of Shergill and others v Khaira and others [2014] UKSC 33 in the UK Supreme Court has narrowed the principle of non-justiciability on the grounds of subject matter. Defamation cases such as Blake v Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB) have treated religious doctrine and practice as matters not justiciable per se, even if a determination is essential for the exercise of private or public law rights and obligations. The Supreme Court indicated in Khaira that it may be appropriate for courts to treat such disputes as justiciable. The common law, domestic statute and the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to reputation, and Khaira indicates that it is time that defamation claims resting on disputes about religious doctrine and practice were entertained by the courts to a much greater extent than recent cases have allowed. However, the judgment has left open the possibility of some religious disputes still being non-justiciable.

A Court of Specialists

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Hanretty
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Political Differences ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Initial Selection ◽  
Selection Of

This book explains how judges on the UK Supreme Court behave. It looks at different stages in the court's decision-making process—from the initial selection of cases, to the choice of judges to sit on panels, to the final outcome. The main argument of the book is that judges' behavior is strongly affected by their specialism in different areas of law. Cases in tax law (or family law, or public law) are more likely to be heard by specialists in that area, and those specialists are more likely to write the court's decision—or disagree with the decision when there is dissent. Legal factors like specialization in areas of law explains more of the court's work than do political differences between judges.

REFLECTIVE LOSS IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Stephen Laing
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

The constitutional influence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the UK apex court: institutional proximity and jurisprudential divergence?

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Roger Masterman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

It is often claimed that the constitutional role of the UK’s apex court is enriched as a result of the experiences of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as interpreter of constitutions within its overseas jurisdiction. This paper considers the relationship between the House of Lords/UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee and its effect on the importation of external influences into the UK’s legal system(s), further seeking to assess how far the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee has influenced constitutional decision-making in the UK apex court. While ad hoc citation of Privy Council authorities in House of Lords/Supreme Court decisions is relatively commonplace, a post-1998 enthusiasm for reliance on Judicial Committee authority – relating to (i) a ‘generous and purposive’ approach to constitutional interpretation and (ii) supporting the developing domestic test for proportionality – quickly faded. Both areas are illustrative of a diminishing reliance on Judicial Committee authority, but reveal divergent approaches to constitutional borrowing as the UK apex court has incrementally mapped the contours of an autochthonous constitutionalism while simultaneously recognising the trans-jurisdictional qualities of the proportionality test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document