Russian court in adversarial criminal procedures

This article discusses the role of the Russian court in accusatory criminal proceedings. At the legislative and practical levels, there is uncertainty about the degree of judicial activity in relation to the question of evidence. The theoretical model of the accusatory system assumes that there is minimal judicial intervention in the investigative proceedings of the parties. The latter must act and defend their position in the criminal case. The court is supposed to have a passive stance. The methodological basis of this study is composed of general scientific and legal methods such as dialectical, historical, systematic, comparative legal, formal-logical methods, etc. Most countries that practice an accusatory model of criminal justice grant the court a certain level of action that allows it to participate fully in the evidence during trials. By way of conclusion, it is suggested to improve the capabilities of the Russian court to actively investigate the evidence, as well as to offer new forms of defense to the parties.

From birth to agony: The political life of operation car wash (operação lava jato)

This article reconstructs Operation Car Wash’s (Operação Lava Jato) political project. Three different moments of the operation are analysed: its conception, its encounter with political and administrative corruption, and its attempt to mobilize popular support to combat political and administrative corruption. The analysis characterizes the operation as a particular manifestation of judicial intervention in the system of representative politics, presenting a critical view of its effects on the balance of power between non-elected and elected officials.

Telaah Efektivitas Mekanisme Pemberhentian Presiden Indonesia: Perbandingan Praktik Amerika Serikat dan Korea Selatan

Impeachment is a part of the control mechanism in the constitutional system to allege the President's violation of the constitution. Impeachment characterizes presidential systems as implemented in various countries, such as the United States, South Korea, and Indonesia. This study aimed to examine the rule and practice on the impeachment of the President and/or Vice President in Indonesia, with reference to the United States and South Korea. Then, it analyzed how this mechanism is effective to be implemented in Indonesia. This study used a juridical research method with a comparative law approach. This study indicated differences in impeachment in the United States, South Korea, and Indonesia. The impeachment mechanism in the United States only involved representative institutions, but that in Indonesia and South Korea required judicial intervention. In particular, Indonesia's impeachment dealt with the decision that remained in the hands of the political institution, the People's Consultative Assembly. In South Korea, the final decision ended in the judicial institution. Through this comparison, Indonesia should reformulate the impeachment mechanism of the President and/or Vice President in Indonesia with the following suggestions. First, regarding allegations of serious violations, the final impeachment decision must be in the Constitutional Court. Second, concerning allegations of misconduct, the decision on impeachment must rest with the People's Consultative Assembly. KEYWORDS: Impeachment, Indonesia, South Korea, United States.

Political Questions in Constitutional Lawsuits: In Pursuit of a Coherent Approach in Bangladesh

Political questions often enthusiastically surmounted the court’s threshold in constitutional litigations in Bangladesh, which gains considerable media exposure and momentum in public debate. While questions involving political overtone come into play, the Judiciary evolves as a site of politics and power and the politics as mega-political issues in ‘constitutional attire’. In such backgrounds, this paper’s chief spotlight focuses on the higher courts’ attitudes or trends to the justiciability of the political questions; and the degree of judicial engagement with the political questions doctrine as a principle. After examining whether courts hold a coherent approach in applying the doctrine of political questions for judicial intervention into politics, this paper further submits what is left of the doctrine to the Judiciary in the prospective context. It also uses searchlights on the imbroglios encountered due to the application, non-application, and over-application of the doctrine from time to time.

Justice among institutions : the IRB as a component of Canadian refugee status determination

This paper takes an institutional approach to examine justice in Canadian refugee status determination, focusing on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) as an administrative tribunal. The IRB is viewed in the historic context of post-Second World War international rights expansion and the rise of New Public Management as an administrative paradigm. Policies implemented by the recent Harper governments are reviewed in light of the IRB’s high permeability to executive influence and low judicial intervention; issues undermining the IRB’s substantive independence are discussed; the interaction of the IRB with other institutions in Canadian refugee status determination, such as the IRCC and CBSA, are examined in terms of venue shopping for implementing desired policy. The possibility of integrating adversarial-style hearings into the IRB while maintaining its currently centralized research and jurisprudence is proposed. Keywords: separation of powers, refugee status determination, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, administrative tribunal, rights expansion, managerialization, New Public Management, endogeneity of law, executive permeability, judicial intervention, venue shopping, inquisitorial hearing, adversarial hearing.

Justice among institutions : the IRB as a component of Canadian refugee status determination

This paper takes an institutional approach to examine justice in Canadian refugee status determination, focusing on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) as an administrative tribunal. The IRB is viewed in the historic context of post-Second World War international rights expansion and the rise of New Public Management as an administrative paradigm. Policies implemented by the recent Harper governments are reviewed in light of the IRB’s high permeability to executive influence and low judicial intervention; issues undermining the IRB’s substantive independence are discussed; the interaction of the IRB with other institutions in Canadian refugee status determination, such as the IRCC and CBSA, are examined in terms of venue shopping for implementing desired policy. The possibility of integrating adversarial-style hearings into the IRB while maintaining its currently centralized research and jurisprudence is proposed. Keywords: separation of powers, refugee status determination, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, administrative tribunal, rights expansion, managerialization, New Public Management, endogeneity of law, executive permeability, judicial intervention, venue shopping, inquisitorial hearing, adversarial hearing.

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: Unresolved Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Arbitrator Appointments in Nigeria

Parties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed.