scholarly journals ՍՈՑԻԱԼԱԿԱՆ ԱՐԴԱՐՈՒԹՅՈՒՆԸ ՈՐՊԵՍ ԻՐԱՎԱՍՏԵՂԾ ԳՈՐԾԸՆԹԱՑԻ ՈՐԱԿԱԿԱՆ ՉԱՓԱՆԻՇ/SOCIAL JUSTICE AS A QUALITATIVE INDICATOR OF THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS/СОЦИАЛЬНАЯ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТЬ КАКА КАЧЕСТЕННЫЙ КРИТЕРИЙ ПРАВОТВОРЧЕСТВА

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Nune Jomardyan
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Equal Opportunity ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Equal Distribution ◽  
Primary Goods ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

Based on the theories of A.Sen and J.Rolls, in this article, the implementation of the principle of social justice was viewed from two perspectives: “equal distribution of primary goods” and “equal opportunity in developing capabilities”. According to the very methodological approach the relevance of social justice and law-making was assessed in which social justice was prioritised as one of the fundamental goals of the law-making process. The research has given much prominence to contemporary legal technologies as well. Based on the analysis of Tax Code recent changes, the existing imperfections were pointed out and the ways of overcoming them were highlighted.

LEGAL SKETCH «THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LEGAL EXCUSES AND PROVERBS OF ANCIENT ROME AS A MEANS OF LEGAL PROPAGANDA ABOUT LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURE»

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Kukharev ◽  
Alexander Rusu
Keyword(s):  
Digital Age ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Ancient Rome ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

This article discusses adaptation of the norms and ideals of Roman law to modern legal culture, the basis of Roman legal relations, which is the basis of modern law-making. It is important to learn how the culture of the law of ancient Rome influenced the formation of modern law of the digital age. The purpose of writing the paper was to highlight the influence of the legal culture of ancient Rome on modern reality.

“Judicial Law-making”: Pro et Contra

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-35
Author(s):  
V. V. Ershov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Process ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
New Concepts ◽  
Judicial Lawmaking ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Understanding ◽  
Developing System ◽  
Law Making

Introduction. As a result of the application in scientific research of descriptive and objectiveteleological methods of studying legal phenomena, a number of foreign and Russian scientists often describe only truly objectively existing legal phenomena, including “judicial law-making”. Theoretical Basis. Methods. From the position of scientifically grounded concept of integrative legal understanding, according to which the system of law first of all synthesizes only the principles and norms of law contained in a single, multi-level and developing system of forms of national and international law, implemented in the state, the article concludes that it is possible to highlight two types of “judicial law-making” in the special literature: “moderate” and “radical” types of “judicial law-making”. Results. “Moderate judicial law-making” is allowed only outside the law, its results are not binding on other courts, as the “norm” created by the court is only applicable ex post, only to a particular dispute and is not binding on other courts. In the opinion of the author of the article, this result of “moderate judicial law-making” is theoretically more reasonable to be considered as a kind of wrong – as “court positions” obligatory only for participants of individual judicial process, developed in the process of consideration and resolution of individual dispute as a result of interpretation of principles and norms of law. Discussion and Conclusion. Researchers – supporters of the “radical” type of “judicial lawmaking” allow the development of “judicial precedents of law” “through the law, beyond and against the law” (contra legem).It seems to the author that this type of “judicial lawmaking” is based on the scientific discussion concept of integrative legal understanding, according to which the heterogeneous social phenomena – right and wrong – are synthesized in the unified system of law (for example, law and individual judicial acts, including those containing specific positions of the court).New concepts and their definitions have been introduced into scientific circulation. The author concludes that the “radical” kind of “judicial law-making” is theoretically debatable, and practically counterproductive.

Parliamentarism and the Legislative Branch

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Sajó ◽  
Renáta Uitz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Internal Operations ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Making

This chapter examines the relationship between parliamentarism and the legislative branch. It explores the evolution of the legislative branch, leading to disillusionment with the rationalized law-making factory, a venture run by political parties beyond the reach of constitutional rules. The rise of democratically bred party rule is positioned between the forces favouring free debate versus effective decision-making in the legislature. The chapter analyses the institutional make-up and internal operations of the legislature, the role of the opposition in the legislative assembly, and explores the benefits of bicameralism for boosting the powers of the legislative branch. Finally, it looks at the law-making process and its outsourcing via delegating legislative powers to the executive.

Gender and judging at the International Criminal Court: Lessons from ‘feminist judgment projects’

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Rosemary Grey ◽  
Kcasey McLoughlin ◽  
Louise Chappell
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Gender Justice ◽  
Gender Analysis ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
Law Making

Abstract To date, analyses of gender justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have focused primarily on critiques of, and shifts within, the Office of the Prosecutor. This article takes a different approach by focusing on the ICC’s judiciary. We being by arguing that state parties can and should do more than electing a balance of male and female judges – they can also ensure gender-sensitivity on the Bench by supporting candidates with expertise in gender analysis, and by backing judges who bring a feminist approach to their work once elected. Next, we explain the concept of the ‘feminist judgment-writing’ and suggest that this method offers a useful framework for embedding gender-sensitive judging at the ICC. To illustrate this argument, we highlight opportunities for ICC judges to engage in gender-sensitive judging in relation to interpreting the law, making findings of fact, and deciding procedural questions. The final section of the article discusses how best to institutionalize the practice of gender-sensitive judging at the ICC.

Quasi-Legislative Powers of State Boards of Health

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. G. Dubach
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

The aim of the present paper is to describe the regulative powers granted to state boards of health, and to consider the wisdom of these grants as well as their validity as tested by the principle that the law-making powers granted to legislatures may not constitutionally be delegated by them to other agents of government.State boards of health, while primarily administrative bodies, have generally a more or less extensive power to make regulations in supplement to and having the force of statute law. Questions thus arise as to the extent and validity of the ordinance-making powers granted. Does the power to make these regulations, having the force of law, change the nature of these boards? Under what conditions may they exercise their power?

O-034 Infertility treatment law making in Europe: the clash of knowledge, ethics and business

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Wilinska-Zelek
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Infertility Treatment ◽  
Oocyte Donation ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Human Reproduction ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

Abstract text Infertility treatment law making in Europe: the clash of knowledge, ethics and business Today, there is no common European set of rules for Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART). ART is now controlled by legislation in almost all European countries, substantial variations exist within the detail of that legislation. Main legal differences between countries relate to: embryo selection, particularly by genetic screening, embryo freezing and embryo transfer, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), oocyte donation, anonymity of gamete donors, surrogacy, patient eligibility criteria (eg, sexual orientation, age), reimbursement and state funding. The most complete survey ever of the ART legal and funding framework of 43 European countries was published in the ESHRE medical journal Human Reproduction Open: Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: Legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries. Hum Reprod Open 2020; doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz044. Unfortunately, changes of legislation are so dynamic that much of the information in this article is no longer up-to-date. Lawyers observe that one of the most important rule of law “When the Law ceases to reflect the realities of Life, it is the Law that will Change” does not work in ART. In regard to this matter dominant rule is: “The Law will change only when it ceases to reflect the government’s point of view and lobbyists’ needs”. Modern medical knowledge and the society’s needs are often not the main concern during the law making discussion. The speech discusses the issues related to infertility treatment law making in Europe with a focus of the problem that modern medical knowledge in this process is not taken into account at all. The author diagnoses numerous problem related to determining the border between medical knowledge, ethics and business in law making process. The observed problems will be discussed on selected examples (from Poland, Greece and the United Kingdom) during presentation at the ESHRE on-line 37th Annual Meeting.

International Economic Law Tribunals and Global Social Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank J. Garcia
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
The Core ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract International courts play a key role in the attainment of global social justice objectives. The core contributions of international adjudication to global social justice are, not surprisingly, in line with the core functions of adjudication: the enforcement of substantive rights in a setting of fair procedures. Fully realizing the potential for justice inherent in this role is limited, however, by certain institutional and structural features unique to international adjudication. This article analyzes these opportunities, challenges, and background conditions in the context of international economic law (IEL) adjudication, where the results are mixed. For example, one can see in the case of the World Trade Organization (WTO) evidence of institutional and doctrinal evolution, albeit uneven, toward more substantively progressive outcomes. In the case of the foreign investment regime, however, one can see evidence of this regime retarding global social justice rather than advancing it. This makes it all the more important that all judges and arbitrators in IEL adjudications consider carefully the interpretive, remedial, and progressive roles that principles of justice can play in adjudication, particularly in the face of any deficiencies in procedural or substantive justice in the law or forum within which they operate. The work of IEL adjudication offers a number of possible sites for interpretive practices according to principles of justice, such as the resolution of disputes involves difficult interpretive questions centered around fairness and unfairness; equality and inequality of treatment; the scope of exceptions; and the meaning of evolutionary terms. Capitalizing on these opportunities and moving IEL adjudication toward global social justice requires what effective judging always requires: a vision of the goals of the institutions and regimes in question; an understanding of the social issues the regime either was created to address or touches incidentally through its actions and externalities; careful attention to the relationships among the relevant actors and their expectations; and a sophisticated understanding of the legal context and legislative history of the law in question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document