Oral Testimony as Historical Source Material for the Reconstruction of the Judicial History of Shipping in India (1600-1800)

This study was an attempt to understand how the available alternative source materials, such as oral testimonies can serve as valuable assets to unveiling certain aspects of maritime history in India. A number of themes in maritime history in India failed to get the attention of the generation of historians, because of the paucity of written documents. Unlike in Europe, the penning down of shipping activities was not a concern for the authorities at the port in India. The pamphlets and newsletters declared the scheduled departure of the ship in Europe but, in India, this was done verbally. Therefore, maritime history in India remained marginalised. Hence, in this article, I make an endeavour to perceive how the oral testimonies can help shed some new light on certain aspects of maritime history in India, such as life on the ship, maritime practices, and perceptions among the littoral people in coastal societies. This article also outlines an approach on how the broader question on the transformation of scattered maritime practices among coastal societies can be adapted and transferred into an organised institution of law by the nineteenth century, and how these can be pursued in future. I also suggest in this article that the role of Europeans, especially the British, in the process of transformation, can be investigated further through oral testimonies in corroboration with the colonial archival records.

The NJAC Case and Judicial Independence

This essay comments on how the judgment in the National Judicial Appointments Commission Case is a befitting affirmation of judicial independence by the Supreme Court, against endemic executive interference in judicial appointments and transfers. This essay provides a conceptual understanding of judicial independence, against the backdrop of certain pivotal instances from India’s judicial history. The highlight of this essay is the author’s discussion of Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth ((1977) 4 SCC 193)—a judgment crucial for establishing the contours of judicial independence in the context of transfer of High Court judges. This essay gives this case the attention it merits by addressing the issue of judicial independence against its backdrop.

Libertades restringidas: el aborto y el ocaso de la libertad de decisión en Estados Unidos

En este artículo se examinan los hechos recientes sobre el creciente conflicto cultural que hay en Estados Unidos en torno al aborto, que se sitúa en el contexto histórico estructural contemporáneo de transición entre dos modelos capitalistas: la modernidad industrial y el posindustrialismo neoliberal globalizado. Por tanto, se exploran sus antecedentes legales y, de manera breve, se analizan los discursos y los actores en disputa. También se revisa la nueva legislación, que en muchos estados ha restringido el acceso al aborto despenalizado para las mujeres de menos ingresos y se evalúan, en general, las implicaciones que esto tiene en la vida de ellas.Palabras clave: Estados Unidos; aborto; disputa; feminismo; conservadurismo-religioso.AbstractIn this article I examine recent events in the contemporary conflict over abortion in the United States. I frame today’s cultural dispute over abortion within the confines of a particular historical and structural context of transition between two distinct capitalist models: the era of industrial modernity and postindustrial, neoliberal globalization. In the article I explore the judicial history of abortion in the United States, while analyzing the content of representative discourses, and highlight demands of contending collective actors. Finally, I review new legislation that has limited access to legal abortion for economically vulnerable women in many states, evaluating its impact on women’s lives and implications for the future.Key words: Unites States; abortion; dispute; feminism; religious conservatism.

The Trial That Never Was: Russian Documentary Theatre and the Pursuit of Justice

Twenty-first-century Russian theatre artists have increasingly taken to using material from real-life events to explore the intricacies of injustice in the civic sphere and its connection to the country's past. In a fifteen-year time span documentary forms have come to the forefront of Russia's theatrical avant-garde. In this article Molly Flynn offers a close reading of one of the most politically charged productions to have emerged from Moscow's booming documentary theatre – One Hour Eighteen: the Trial that Wasn't but Should Have Been (2010). The play uses verbatim texts from the prison and medical staff directly involved in the final days before the murder of Russian attorney Sergei Magnitskii in 2009. Setting the piece in a theatrical courtroom, the creators of One Hour Eighteen place their work in the context of Russia's judicial history in the previous century, during which the resemblance of trials to theatre has often been uncomfortably close. Molly Flynn is a doctoral candidate in Slavonic Studies at the University of Cambridge. She is currently completing her doctoral thesis on the history and significance of documentary theatre in twenty-first-century Russia.

Why It Is High Time to Reform the Homicide Statutes

The Bremen Regional Court is located in a monumental building – theAltes Gerichtshaus(Old Courthouse). A stone slab has adorned its facade since time immemorial. It has been placed directly under the jury courtroom – where the capital crimes come to trial. The inscription on the slab reads: “Thou shalt not kill.” During the National Socialist dictatorship the ruling powers wanted to take down the slab and destroy it. But some citizens of Bremen stopped them. Instead, the commandment against killing was merely covered with a stone slab and not uncovered again until after 1945. The admonition can still be seen today at the Bremen Regional Court. This episode from Bremen's judicial history brings to light three things. First, “Thou shalt not kill” – one of the ten Biblical commandments – is the archetype for all rules associated with human coexistence. Second, the commandment did not suit the agenda of the National Socialists, who perfected the killing of human beings in their extermination camps with industrial means. Third, the people sensed intuitively that rejecting the commandment against killing was a fatal error that would lead to barbarism. That is why they made sure the commandment stayed where it was, even though it became invisible during the Nazi dictatorship.

THE ORIGINS OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IN NEW YORK, 1621–1777

Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes an independent federal judiciary: federal courts constitute a separate branch of the national government, federal judges enjoy tenure during good behavior, and their salaries cannot be diminished while they hold office. The framers who drafted Article III in 1787 were not working from whole cloth. Rather, they were familiar with the preceding colonial and state practices, including those from New York. This essay provides a case study of New York's judicial history: the Dutch period, 1621-1664; the Ducal proprietary period, 1664-1685; the Royal period, 1685-1776; and the early state period. As will be seen, New York—among the most significant of the original thirteen states—was a state groping towards a new ideal of judicial independence: an ideal that became a reality a decade after its own constitution was enacted in 1777 and at a different level of government. Significantly, the uncertain status of New York's judiciary had profound consequences for the ultimate expression of judicial independence, judicial review.

Equitable Recoupment: Is It Finally Equitable?

ABSTRACT: There are currently no statutory remedies for the double taxation of a taxpayer or transaction, only a judicial doctrine known as equitable recoupment. Equitable recoupment can be used by either a taxpayer or the government to avoid unjust enrichment caused by enforcement of the statute of limitations. It involves a single transaction subject to two different legal theories of taxation, a claim barred by the statute of limitations, and a sufficient identity of interest between the taxpayers. Until recently, equitable recoupment could be raised in District Court and the Court of Federal Claims, but the jurisdiction of the Tax Court in such matters was uncertain. The enactment of a new tax provision in 2006 allows taxpayers to avoid having to sue for a refund and enables them to seek relief in Tax Court. This is particularly helpful for taxpayers who do not have the resources to pay a tax and then file a claim for refund, especially in light of the new enforcement efforts on the part of the IRS. This article provides a judicial history of equitable recoupment, an explanation of the recent statutory change, and a discussion of the implications for taxpayers and tax practitioners.