Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the reforming Chinese arbitration judicial review process and supplement the corresponding suggestions and analyze the practical trends of Chinese arbitration.

This paper presents considerable evidence that includes the latest empirical data and iconic cases to demonstrate the Chinese judicial system’s acts of internationalizing Chinese arbitration. This paper then elaborates the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter SPC) recent reforms of the mechanisms of arbitration judicial review.

The SPC’s efforts to coordinate Chinese arbitration practice with international standards are effective and fruitful. However, even after recent reforms, there are still inherent deficiencies and important omissions that hinder the efficiency of Chinese arbitration.

The major contributions of this paper are providing latest empirical data to evaluate effectiveness of current Chinese arbitration judicial review and analyzing latest SPC’s legal interpretations.

Under the doctrine of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts retain the power and authority to review legislative and executive actions and rule on their constitutionality or legality. Courts may also review actions of judges and lower court decisions. This is an important and necessary action to maintain the checks and balances and separation of powers in the United States (U.S.) political system. It is also critical for providing legal oversight and accountability. This chapter will first look at judicial review historically including relevant statutes and cases, actions by the executive branch, and efforts by Congress.

Additionally, the chapter will examine the relationship between judicial review and public policy. Through laws passed by Congress or regulations enacted by federal agencies, these branches of government draft policies with the expectation the judicial branch will enforce them. The courts, however, are to uphold the Constitution first and foremost, and rule on the constitutionality of the laws and regulations. Judicial opinions can have the effect of creating policy, which is a different purpose than the Founding Fathers intended. After reviewing the court system, the chapter will examine several issue areas where the court has been shaped by and in turn influenced public policy.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

This study investigates the presence of a productivity–quality trade-off in judicial decisions from an organisational standpoint, focusing on the courts as bureaucracies. Applied to the Italian context and focusing on criminal courts, the main question addressed is whether or not increasing productivity diminishes decision quality.

Directional distance function (DDF) models were utilised to assess productivity. Two-sample t-tests are then used to compare the quality of efficient and inefficient units in first instance and appeal, with the aim to determine whether a productivity–quality trade-off exists.

The study’s approach yields results that differ from previous studies. (1) The Italian judicial system is found less efficient. (2) The efficiency of the courts of first instance is relatively uniform. In contrast, there is a difference in efficiency between northern and southern courts of appeal, with northern courts on average being more efficient. (3) The analysis reveals a statistically significant productivity–quality trade-off when the courts of appeal are considered.

New evidence of a judicial system is presented, suggesting reforms regarding “reasonable time” as the optimal balance between quality and productivity.

The organisational framework leads to evaluating the efficiency of the courts by considering the various types of proceedings based on the gravity/complexity of the cases. In light of the pyramidal structure of the justice system, the quality is then defined in terms of hierarchical control expressed as review rate.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the role of the judiciary in ensuring legal accountability of government officials and its impact on governance in the context of Bangladesh. Although, the judicial system of Bangladesh comprises Supreme Court, subordinate courts and tribunals. However, this study focuses Supreme Court only to keep the study in a manageable extent.

The study is qualitative in nature and based on content analysis. Dhaka Law Report (DLR), which is a monthly published report on case laws[1] decided by the Supreme Court has been selected as content for this study. Some case laws selected from DLR (2004‐2008) were analyzed using purposive sampling method, with a view to evaluating the effectiveness of judiciary (as an external but formal mechanism of accountability) in accountability of government administration and management and its impact on overall governance.

The most important finding of this paper is that the judiciary is very effective for ensuring legal accountability of government officials, which ultimately contributes to human rights and good governance. However, a major problem found was that until and unless an affected person files a case against a government authority, maintaining the required procedures of judiciary, it (the judiciary) has no scope to settle any disputes. Though there is a provision of Suo Muto (by own initiative) rule of the Supreme Court, this practice is very rare in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the executive is responsible for implementing the verdict of the judiciary. Therefore, if the government has not enough respect for, or does not care to implement judiciary's verdict, justice and rule of law will not be ensured. This study also found some cases like this.

This work does not address detailed issues of governance and is not based on empirical data.

This is a mixed study of judiciary and public administration, which is very rare in Bangladesh. Therefore, it will be brought into line with current practice by the concerned researchers and policy makers in public administration and judiciary.

This paper will be of interest to legal practitioners, policy makers, academicians and those in the field of governance.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the role of judicial activism as a golden mean approach of judiciary in protecting and promoting human rights from illegitimate interferences of government. With this aim, several case studies have been done on verdicts of higher judiciary in Bangladesh.

This paper is an exploratory case study focused on Bangladesh. The paper is qualitative in nature and based on secondary sources of published facts like books, journal articles and Dhaka Law Reports. Information also gathered through Internet browsing.

Though judiciary is very effective to protect and promote human rights and rule of law in a country through judicial activism or public interest litigation, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are crucial in Bangladesh. Delay and disposal of cases is one of the great impediments in the process of ensuring human rights in Bangladesh. Besides, negligence in implement the verdict of judiciary and interferences of executive over judiciary is another finding of this paper. Apart from these shortcomings, judicial activism is a very important potential instrument of judiciary to protect and promote human rights and the rule of law in Bangladesh.

The major limitation of this paper is it is based on secondary sources of information. It would have more rich if periodical data can be used for comparing theory and practice.

This paper would be helpful for making a policy for overcoming limitations of judicial activism in Bangladesh to protect and promote human rights.

Social awareness can be build-up through NGOs and readers by disseminating and penetrating information of this paper’s findings and recommendations.

This paper would an unique and add new knowledge in the literature of public interest litigation and Human Rights Law in the context of Bangladesh.

Little is known about the strategies used by state courts during the appropriations process. This article examines court budgetary practices in the state of Oklahoma. It reveals how court funding works in Oklahoma, what strategies are used by the state courts, and which factors are most important in determining the success of the courts in getting the funds they need. It shows that the judiciary is not necessarily at the mercy of the other branches of government when seeking resources. The findings provide the first glimpse at court budgeting strategies and determinants of these strategies’ success at the state level.

Explores judicial attitudes in professional negligence cases affecting liability for property investment advice. Focuses on the standard of work required to discharge the legal duty of care and on apparent contradictions in approach by the courts. Reviews a series of cases which are taken to exhibit traditional attitudes to professional liability and studies modern cases which are irreconcilable with those attitudes. Includes liability to third party mortgagors and to third party mortgagees in an analysis of the duty of care, and considers the implications of the perceived expansion of the advisor′s professional duties, which include potential conflicts of interest and the dichotomy between the standards current among professionally qualified and unqualified practitioners. Suggests that judicial attitudes are influential in shaping the practice of property investment advice, but that this intervention is fraught with difficulties as it creates uncertainty among professional advisors about the nature of the tasks undertaken.

Those parties who do become caught up in the sanctions and are blacklisted face a daunting situation. Their property and accounts are often blocked, and dealings with US parties, and frequently their overseas affiliates as well, are essentially cut off with little or no warning by virtue of decisions made by a relatively small and obscure office within the Treasury Department. US as well as foreign parties can be blacklisted, and these restrictions can even extend to a firm's employees. The practical consequence of being touched by one of the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) economic sanctions programmes may be the economic equivalent of capital punishment. By virtue of the restrictions, the blacklisted business may cease to exist as a viable entity.