scholarly journals Contracting-out at Arbitration

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-196
Author(s):  
Pierre Verge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bargaining Unit ◽  
Contracting Out ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
The Subject

A comparative study of arbitral decisions rendered in the United States, the Canadian Common Law Provinces and Quebec over grievances arising in the contest of collective agreements that contain no specific provision on the subject out of Management's action of arranging with an outside firm to have it perform work hitherto done by members of the bargaining unit. The possible effect of new section 10a of the Quebec Labour Relations Act on this practice of contracting out will also be considered.

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.

Part IV Practice and Process, Ch.20 Judicial Reasoning

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stone Adrienne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Judicial Reasoning

This chapter identifies the methods and techniques that characterize judicial reasoning about constitutional law in Australia, as well as significant points of agreement and disagreement thereof. Here, ‘constitutional reasoning’ refers to the explanation and justification given to the application of constitutional principles to specific circumstances. In common law systems, constitutional reasoning is most commonly understood as ‘judicial reasoning’. In Australia, its focus is usually the Constitution of the Commonwealth. However, not all constitutional reasoning takes this form. In particular, the chapter focuses only on the narrower conception of constitutional reasoning as judicial reasoning. This focus is justified partly by central tenets of Australian constitutionalism itself. Unlike the in the United States, the courts' power to interpret and enforce the Constitution has never been the subject of serious controversy.

Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 439-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Twining
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Evidence And Proof ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Historical Origins

In recent years reform of the Law of Evidence has been the subject of renewed interest in many common law countries. Since the adoption of the Federal Rules, debate about wholesale reform has been relatively muted in the United States. But this is exceptional. Major reports have been produced in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Scotland, and England. With the exception of Canada, most of these have led, or are likely to lead, to significant legislative changes. This period of reformist activity has coincided with a greatly increased interest in theoretical aspects of evidence and proof, sometimes referred to as “The New Evidence Scholarship”. The historical origins of these two movements are rather different, but their ways of talking and thinking about the subject are, of course, intimately connected.

State Speech vs. Hate Speech

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100
Author(s):  
Michael Weinman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Do So ◽  
New View

This is, indeed, another work on the subject of hate speech regulation in the United States. And yet, it is not just another such work. For my goal here is not to settle the jurisprudential arguments regarding the possibility of any specific hate speech regulation, either extant or yet to be conceived, withstanding a Constitutional test. Nor is it my intention to demonstrate, on the basis of a comparative study of existing legislation, that such regulation either is or is not effective in addressing or redressing the social ills of hatred, discrimination, and inequality. Rather, I will achieve greater analytical clarity about just what the harms of hate speech are. I do so in order to reinvigorate the question about regulation with a new view of what exactly the object needing attention is, by demonstrating that though there are real harms here, the state cannot provide a regulatory remedy (at least qua criminal justice). Thus, in my conclusion I will assert that the question of what we might do differently in response to hate speech can only be answered —however provisionally—insofar as we first confront how we need to think differently about it. Specifically, I will argue that we need to replace the emphasis on redressing harms once they have occurred with a new emphasis on addressing, and ultimately eliminating, the conditions which make those harms possible in the first place.

scholarly journals Secularism Confronts Islam

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-112
Author(s):  
David L. Johnston
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Islam ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
School Girls ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Veil

This work by a leading French Islamicist is both an analysis of Islam, secularism,and society in Europe, as well as a prescription for its leaders on howto “correct” their wrongheaded policies with regard to their Muslim minoritiesbased on this analysis. This might seem unduly arrogant on OlivierRoy’s part, but his past landmark books do seem to commend the perspicacityof his views on the subject, and most of all, The Failure of Political Islam(Harvard University Press: 1994) and Globalized Islam: The Search for theNew Umma (Hurst: 2004).On one level, Roy is focused on France: how one might begin to mitigatethe polarization of the French elites in the wake of forbidding the veil in publicplaces and the violence of the 2005 riots in the poorest – mostly Muslim– suburbs of Paris. Indeed, the first chapter is devoted to the historical rootsof France’s virulent version of state-enforced secularism (laïcité). But onanother level, this is a work rich in theoretical analysis, widening its insightsto Britain and the United States and their “common law” version of laïcité, aswell as providing a new theory to the sociology of religion.The intensity of the French debate raises important questions. “The campaignof Islamophobia we are witnessing today is involved in the reshapingof the French political and intellectual landscape” (p. 2). How so? The ChristianRight and the Extreme Right’s suspicion of Islam is now shared by a sizableportion of the Left, which has reacted with fear to the French Muslimcommunity’s new and outspoken rhetoric. School girls want to wear the veilout of pride. And this new Islamic discourse has been promoted both by the“bearded Salafist preacher” and the suave intellectual embodied by TariqRamadan ...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document