Judicial Interpretation in Resolving the Conflict on Jurisdiction between the Central Government and the Federating Units

The tension between the central government and the federating units has always been an intractable issue between the forces of centralization and decentralization in a federalism with the judiciary at the intersection of the conflict. Therefore, this study examines judicial interpretation in resolving the conflict on jurisdiction between the central government and the federating units. It applies Henri Lefebvre’s theory of space, Richard Ford’s analysis of jurisdiction, Benjamin Cardozo’s and Oliver Wendell Holmes’s psychology of judging to judicial interpretation in resolving the conflict on jurisdiction between the central government and the federating units. It finds that the justices on the majority and the minority who interpret the constitution to resolve questions of jurisdiction between the central government and the federating units often play politics of space hidden within the interstices of legal rules without being conscious of their psychological biases. Hence, it argues that instead of playing politics of space, what the justices should do is to apply the principles in Keynesian federalism bolstered by the rule of presumption. With this, the influence of politics borne of psychological biases can be reduced while both the central government and the federating units are given equal chances. In conclusion, it recommends that whenever the judges are called upon to resolve the conflict between the central government and the federating units, the principle in Keynesian federalism with the rule of presumption should be applied.

10. Jurisdiction

This chapter focuses on the principles of international law that govern the right of States to apply their laws to conduct and events occurring within or outside their own territories; the resolution of disputes arising from overlapping jurisdictional claims; and the problems of enforcing national laws. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘jurisdiction’; the significance of the principles of jurisdiction; doctrinal analysis of jurisdiction; the territorial principle; the national principle; the protective principle; the universal principle; treaty-based extensions of jurisdiction; controversial bases of prescriptive jurisdiction; types of jurisdiction; limitations upon jurisdiction; inadequacies of the traditional approach; and the fundamental principle governing enforcement jurisdiction.

Drug Courts and Community Crime Rates: A Nationwide Analysis of Jurisdiction-Level Outcomes

Although a substantial number of studies have reported that drug courts reduced the recidivism of graduates (Wilson et al., 2006), a series of recent analyses suggested that drug courts and similar programs were associated with unintended crime outcomes in cities and counties across the nation (Lilley and Boba, 2008; Miethe et al., 2000; Peters et al., 2002; Worrall et al., 2009). Given that over 220,000 offenders participated in this alternative to incarceration and most did not successfully complete the drug court program, jurisdictional crime may have been impacted. A series of panel data analyses were conducted among more than 5,000 jurisdictions nationwide from 1995 to 2002 to assess the impact of drug court implementation grants on UCR Part I felony offenses. Consistent with prior findings, drug court implementation grants were associated with net increases in vehicle theft, burglary, larceny, and some violent offenses. Possible explanations for these unintended outcomes are discussed along with recommendations for adjustments to current drug court programs across the nation.