Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

There was a conflict between the judgment of the lower court and the Supreme Court regarding the adequacy of the right of defense granted to public officials in disciplinary proceedings. In other words, the Supreme Court made a judgment 2022du33323 on July 14, 2022, which is against the original trial in the lower court (2020nu52759, sentenced by Seoul High Court, on January 13). the Supreme Court judged that there is a reason not to disclose the victim's personal information and that The disciplinary agency fully guaranteed the right to defend. Also, the Supreme Court judged that the plaintiff knew who the anonymous victims were and there was no problem with the plaintiff's exercise of defense rights. However, the Supreme Court’s judgement, 2022du33323 has the following problems. First of all, it was used as a basis for judging that there was no problem in guaranteeing the plaintiff's right to defense during the disciplinary process due to the fact that there was no objection that the victim was not specified during the disciplinary process. Secondly, It was wrong to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, citing the situation in which the plaintiff was already aware of the victim while allowing the anonymous treatment of the witness due to the victim's secondary damage. Lastly, It is unfair to cause the plaintiff to fundamentally lose the opportunity to deny his or her disciplinary charges. For this reason, it is thought that a disciplinary agency, the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to defend, and that the Supreme Court's judgment ignored the principle of due process in this case. Paradoxically, 2022du33323 demonstrated the need for institutional supplementation in the following areas of the disciplinary process. Among them, this paper presents three supplementary points. ① First of all, the administrative agency sufficiently informs the person of the right to participate in an attorney until the time of disciplinary action, so that the person subject to disciplinary action is given an opportunity to utilize it. ② Next, The Appeal Review Committee shall facilitate the submission of data by both parties apart from keeping the victim confidential. ③ Lastly, in disciplinary action, the victim's personal information, reasons for disciplinary action, and the contents of disciplinary action must be disclosed to the parties, and the Defendant Administrative Agency must faithfully prove the contents of the disciplinary action. In the end, such institutional improvements are necessary to ensure the principle of due process. by improvements, it is expected that the person subject to disciplinary action will exercise the right to defend more effectively in the disciplinary process and that an appropriate level of relief will be achieved.

The article analyzes the formation and development of judicial precedent in Ukraine and its interaction with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court. Through the relativity with judicial precedent, the phenomenon of judicial decision (legal position) in the Ukrainian legal system is studied. The basis of legal regulation in Ukraine is the law, but domestic legal science currently considers judicial decision as one of the sources of law. The issue of the status of judicial decision in Ukraine, and therefore judicial precedent, is becoming increasingly relevant, since along with the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court, the conclusions and legal position of the European Court of Human Rights become sources of domestic law. At the same time, Ukrainian judicial proceedings have certain problems with the relevance of the application of such decisions. It is noted that precedent and judicial decision are not identical categories. An act of the judicial authority acquires a precedent character only within the framework of the application of substantive law norms if the necessary conditions are met. The term “judicial precedent” is not used in Ukrainian legislation, but the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the conclusions on the application of legal norms set out in the Supreme Court’s decisions have many properties that create the prerequisites for stating the phenomenon of precedent in the Ukrainian system of legal regulation. At the same time, the conclusions of the court and the legal position set out in court decisions, although they contain elements of precedent, cannot be absolutely identified with a classical precedent in common law. First, in Ukraine, it is the law that creates the legal prerequisites for a court decision to acquire the status of a source of law; secondly, it is not the act of the judiciary as a whole that has normative significance, but only that part of it that contains the legal position formulated by the court. In fact, a clearly formulated conclusion (legal position) of an authorized court on a controversial issue of the application of other norms of law acquires legal force, and the court decision as a whole remains an act of individual action.

Pakistan's Law for Removal of Superior Courts Judges: Safeguards to Independence of Judiciary v/s Duty of Executive to Probe into Conduct of Judges

The outgoing tide of EU law will be Britain’s most significant constitutional change in recent times. In an era of uncertainties, the UK Supreme Court proved to be a guardian of the constitutional role of Parliament. The case of Miller, decided in the UK Supreme Court in 2017, proved that point. The highest court in the UK has therefore gained an important place in the global community of Constitutional Courts. This global community finds its legitimacy in the recognition of common values as well as the recognition of national variations. This article analyses to which extent common values, and in particular those found in German law, have influenced decisions in the House of Lords and UK Supreme Court. To do so, the author analyses decisions by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court and extrajudicial speeches by the Justices of the Supreme Court for references to German constitutional law. It identifies and maps the themes that have attracted the attention of the justices of the Supreme Court. More recently, the UK Supreme Court has referred to judgments and extrajudicial writing by German Constitutional Court judges. This was in the context of constitutional questions relating to the tension between membership within the EU and national identity, a theme which has occupied German judges for some time. As well as that, the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has sparked an interest in German jurisprudence, in particular in the principle of proportionality.

For strengthening the legal system of justice against the menace of bribery, a highly cogent and sensitive forensic technique has been developed using an indicator dye of triphenylmethane group---Bromocresol green (BCG)---as corruption marker. By means of BCG, a bribe-seeker can be so firmly trapped that not only his/her hand or finger(s) get colored blue upon treatment with water, that even the shirt's pocket as well as some of the coercively-received currency notes also get tainted with deep blue color. The new technique replaces the age-old use of phenolphthalein for trapping the bribe-seeker wherein, when bribe-taker's hand is dipped in sodium carbonate solution a pink color is produced. The necessity for a new and cogent technique has become desirable because owing to several procedural deficiencies and techno-legal lacunae as pointed out in various High Courts’ and Supreme Court's judgments, and also because of the instability of the pink color generated by phenolphthalein and alkali, the trapped-and-convicted persons are quite often set free upon appeals. But the sturdy blue color produced by BCG is of highly stable in nature which firmly and truly ratifies the “Locard's Exchange Principle” of forensic science. The strong blue spots specially on the hand or fingers and the blue-spotted shirt pocket along with the blue-tinted currency notes, can all act collectively as strong incriminating legal evidence(s) against the trapped person. Unlike phenolphthalein, sodium carbonate is not required in the BCG method to generate the color (blue) either in water or on other (hard) objects. Moreover, any additional stabilizer like hydroquinone, etc., is also not required either for storing the blue solution, or for safekeeping the blue-spotted hard materials like shirt, handkerchief, or currency notes for showing them in the court of law at appropriate stage. Since the BCG-produced blue color on the currency notes is of utmost stability and can not be wiped away by ordinary means, a special method has also been reported to safely remove (conceal) the blue spots from the currency notes used in the ‘Operation BCG’. Having all these (hard) bluish objects in the hands of anti-corruption bureau (ACB) as irrefutable evidences against the accused, there is hardly left any need for safekeeping the blue-colored water solution (the liquid obtained after dipping trapped person's hand in water).

Since 1995, the Chilean Supreme Court counts with specialized chambers for knowing determinate matters. One of the main objectives in creating these specialized chambers consisted in assuring a more certain and uniform application of the law. This article focuses on the case-law produced by the Supreme Court's criminal chamber, trying to assess the extent to which the goal of a uniform application of the law was achieved during the years 1995-2002. In order to do so, the study utilizes the conceptual framework elaborated by relevant American research on the following of precedents, assuming that a more uniform application of the law is the natural result of that kind of court behavior. According to that research, the degree to which the precedents set by a Supreme Court are actually followed can be ascertained in two levels: first, by examining the phenomena within the Supreme Court itself, where a justice's precedential attitude depends on a low level of salience of the issue addressed, which in turns depends on specific historical circumstances (Spaeth & Segal); second, by studying the issue in a 'vertical' direction, that is, through the examination of the extend to which the behavior of lower court's is congruent with the jurisprudence elaborated by the Supreme Court, which depends on certain institutional conditions studied under the principal/agent relationship model (Songer, Segal & Cameron). This study examines precisely the degree of precedent-following exhibited by the Criminal Chamber of the Chilean Supreme Court and by the country's High courts with regard to five precedent-setting cases decided by the former. After an extensive analysis of court decisions and in depth-interviews of Supreme Court's justices and High Court's judges, as well as criminal-lawyers, the study concludes that the introduction of a Supreme Courts' Criminal Chamber has produced ambivalent, if not poor, outcomes in terms of a uniformity of its jurisprudence, both within the Criminal Chamber itself and at the High courts' level.

This is the United States report submitted for the session on Formal and Informal Constitutional Amendment at the Twentieth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law to be held in Fukuoka, Japan in July, 2018. The report reviews Article V of the United States Constitution setting out the rules for constitutional amendment and it provides a brief chronology of the twenty-eight amendments adopted to date. It notes a number of potential problems of interpretation associated with Article V. The report considers the widely held assumption that the United States Constitution is one of the hardest, if not the hardest. constitution in the world to change. It goes on to discuss possible limits on the substance of constitutional amendments. Some of these are set out in Article V but, as some other jurisdictions have recognized, there may be further, implicit restrictions based on the distinction between constitutional amendment and constitutional replacement. Many issues associated with constitutional amendment remain unresolved as a result of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to pronounce on the validity of amendments. Finally, the report compares the Article V process to the very significant constitutional change that has been accomplished through the constitutional interpretation of the United States Supreme Court. It concludes that jurisdictions like the United States where the constitution is treated with undisguised reverence, face a dilemma. Limiting constitutional revision to the formal process will eventually result in a constitution that is radically unsuitable for a modern society. But allowing irregular modification by judges sacrifices the key values of security, stability and predictability, the reasons we have a written constitution in the first place.

After the Cold War era, significant constitutional changes took place in Latin America. One distinct trend is the neo-Bolivarian constitutionalism, which has taken place in the ALBA countries, including the constitutional replacements of Venezuela (1999), Ecuador (2008), and Bolivia (2009). Many scholars have rightly criticized these constitutional experiments arguing that they have helped to deteriorate a liberal notion of democracy. This essay approaches a question that complements those criticisms from a different perspective: how the ALBA countries have resorted to varied notions of political representation. The authors use the classic work of Pitkin to identify the different sorts of political representation involved in the ALBA constitutional experiments, finding a combination of symbolic and descriptive representation. The former is linked to the figure of the president as a caudillo that centralizes political power, whereas the latter is fostered by both the president and the contents of the new constitutions related to the original peoples. As a result, the empowering purpose of constitutionalism has been preferred over its constraining purpose.

This study examines the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Indian judiciary system, focusing on its potential to address environmental sustainability and climate change challenges while improving judicial efficiency. The Indian courts’ traditional paper-based operations contribute significantly to environmental degradation, necessitating technological solutions for a greener justice system. The research analyzes the current state of AI implementation in Indian courts through examination of three major initiatives: SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), and various e-Court projects. The study evaluates both environmental impact data and technological implementation reports from the Supreme Court’s E-Committee and Ministry of Law and Justice. The implementation of AI-driven systems has shown promising results, with SUVAS successfully translating over 36,271 Supreme Court judgments into Hindi and 17,142 judgments into 16 regional languages by 2024. Virtual hearings between 2020 and 2023 prevented an estimated 50,000 metric tons of carbon emissions through reduced travel. While AI integration shows significant promise in reducing environmental impact and improving judicial efficiency, the study identifies key challenges including the need for comprehensive legislation governing AI use in judiciary, substantial infrastructure requirements, and data privacy concerns. The recent allocation of ₹1,500 crore for Phase III of the e-Courts Project and the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act demonstrate strong governmental commitment to technological advancement in judiciary while addressing legal and privacy concerns.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.

Article 24 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution "Judicial power is an independent power to administer justice to uphold law and justice". Will However, Article 24A paragraph 3 makes a provision that candidates for Supreme Court judges are proposed by the Judicial Commission to the DPR for approval and subsequently appointed as Supreme Court justices by the president and the Supreme Court Law states that the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is carried out by the President at the proposal of the DPR or the dismissal of the Chair, Deputy Chairperson. , Junior Chairmen, and Member Judges of the Supreme Court are dismissed by the President at the suggestion of the Supreme Court, so that the President has loopholes that can later affect the psyche of judges in making decisions. This study aims to determine the independence of judicial power in Indonesia in the perspective of Islamic law. This study uses a normative and juridical approach. The authors conclude that the proposal for the appointment and dismissal of Supreme Court judges by the Judicial Commission, the DPR and the President may affect the psychology of a judge in making a decision so that This can eliminate the meaning of Article 24 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution which shows the lack of independence of the judicial power in upholding justice in accordance with the ideals of the 1945 Constitution. Indeed, in the history of the Islamic judiciary, it is the Caliph (President) who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a judge/qhadi. judges have a fear of Allah so that judges decide cases based on Islamic law.

Judges of supreme court: Portraits wanted Get access Reginald V. Harris Reginald V. Harris 1Halifax, Canada Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Notes and Queries, Volume 156, Issue 20, 18 May 1929, Page 350, https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/156.20.350c Published: 18 May 1929

This paper critically assessed the obstacles and prospects of local government autonomy in Nigeria. Emphasis is on the 2024 Supreme Court judgement under the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. To evaluate the constitutional and legal frameworks impacting local governments in Nigeria, the study used secondary sources, which include judicial judgements, legal documents, and scholarly publications, guided by the governance theory. The paper examined important constitutional clauses such as the State and Local Government Joint Account (Section 162(6)), the State Assembly’s legislative authority over local councils (Section 7(1)), and the lack of express acknowledgement of local governments as a third level of government. Findings of this study revealed that these provisions erode the fiscal and operational revenue self-sufficiency of local governments to a very large extent, thus re-echoing their subordination to the state governments. While the Supreme Court’s judgement did clear certain misinterpretation on the status of local governments, it failed to address the root cause of the restrictions that continue to place a cap on their decision-making authority. The paper recommended areas of constitutional changes needed, including amendment to the restrictive provisions of the constitution, and capacity building of local governments as prerequisites to actual decentralization and effective functionality of local councils in Nigeria, particularly as it relates to enthroning autonomous system of the local councils.

Mental Illness and the Death Penalty

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change. By Paul M. Collins, Jr., and Lori A. Ringhand. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 296 pp. $32.99 paperback.This book does exactly what scholarly manuscript ought to do: It offers novel theoretical interpretation of long-known phenomenon, makes arguments backed up with empirical evidence and accompanied by real-life examples, and makes one think. While it remains debatable whether theirs is right view of phenomenon under study, it is absolutely case that it ought to be taken seriously and widely discussed and debated. Indeed, I urge everyone with an interest in confirmation hearings and in interplay between Congress, Supreme Court, and public, to engage with their analysis and discuss its implications. After summarizing their argument, I will do so here, in hopes of beginning conversation.In their book, Collins and Ringhand analyze Supreme Court confirmation hearings, attributing to them more meaning than has been so attributed to date. The conventional wisdom is basically that Senators are grandstanding and playing to their constituents as they ask long-winded statement/questions while nominees themselves decline to answer most basic of questions concerning their views on relevant issues. We already know, from other scholarly research, that latter is not true; Justice-Nominees do indeed answer most of questions posed to them. In addition, although, Collins and Ringhand ascribe much more meaning to questioning arguing that these hearings constitute a democratic forum for discussion and ratification of constitutional change (p. 10). They make case for their much-more-charitable interpretation of these events by showing that Senators ask questions about issues that are important to public, and that conversations they have with nominees are grounded in Supreme Court precedent. This translates, they argue, into evidence that, through process, Senate informs public of Supreme Court precedent, takes position informed by public opinion on constitutional interpretation choices made in those precedents, and communicates to Supreme Court nominees expectation that they will abide by those preferred, public-opinion-ratified constitutional understandings. They test these claims via two empirical chapters and several qualitative analyses, finding support for their view.Their characterization of hearings as democratic forum for constitutional discussion is intriguing. Indeed, many legal scholars argue that judges ought not be exclusively charged with interpreting so construal of confirmation hearings that considers people's constitution, as many scholars call it, is attractive. Is it possible that these hearings are official way in which the people contribute to constitutional conversation? Perhaps, although I have few doubts making me resist Collins and Ringhand's notion.Most importantly, I continue to struggle with considering questions asked by Senators to constitute constitutional conversation, expecting instead that they are either way for Senators to wax eloquent on issues important to their voters, or way for Senators to predict how nominee will vote. The findings reported in book remain consistent with both notions: Senators ask about policies, not about theories of constitutional interpretation; and largest impact on questioning is amount of legislation in particular issue area and not most important issue or amount of Supreme Court precedent in an issue area (although they each matter as well). …