Search results

The main aim of this paper is to analyze judicial system of Bangladesh, which comprises all courts and tribunals that performs the delicate task of ensuring rule of law in the society. The paper depicts the history and evolution of the judicial system in Bangladesh from ancient period to present day.

The study is qualitative in nature and based on secondary sources of materials like books, journal articles, government orders, rules, acts, newspaper reports, etc. Relevant literature has also been collected through internet browsing.

The major findings of this paper are: there is a well‐organized court system in Bangladesh which is in fact the replica of the system introduced by British rulers and it is widely accepted in the original Constitution of Bangladesh. The ancient judicial system was not based on rule of law rather on caprice and caste consideration. The executive branch of government always attempts to control the judiciary through different mechanisms, which include the appointment, tenure and discipline of judges from ancient period. Therefore, the independence of judiciary is vulnerable from ancient time to present day and even after separation of the judiciary from the executive (November 2007) the interference of the executive over the judiciary is still continuing.

This paper opens a new window for the policy makers and concerned authorities to take necessary steps for overcoming the existing limitations of judiciary.

The paper will be of interest to legal practitioners, policy makers, members of civil society, and those in the field of judicial system in Bangladesh and some other British colonial common law countries.

The purpose of this paper is to diagnostically explore the phenomenon of judicial corruption in Nigeria, its causative factors and generate strategies such as sonic therapeutic intervention, among others, that would facilitate an amelioration of the situation. The judiciary which is supposed to be last hope of justice for the Nigerian citizenry has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been infected with the virus of corruption, and therefore, an urgent call for action to rectify the situation is imperative.

The study uses a qualitative approach rooted in case study tradition.

The findings showed that power and testosterone, cheating proclivity, family pressure, qualitative passion and ignorance, low self-control, inordinate kleptocratic desire, unrestrained mind and sensory modalities, phenomenological mindset and identity crisis as endogenous contributive factors of judicial corruption in Nigeria.

The limitation of the study stemmed from the fact that inasmuch as a perception of corruption and corruption are cultural phenomena, the study results cannot be generalizable.

The practical implication of the research is rooted in the fact that the Nigerian judiciary can gain from the study results and recommendation(s) if implemented without fear or favor for the overall renewal of the judiciary and the nation at large.

The study is geared toward ameliorating the Nigerian corrupt judiciary or repositioning the judiciary on its pivotal dignity, and hence, its social implication cannot be overemphasized inasmuch as a positive social change would prevail if the study results and recommendation(s) are aligned with and implemented.

Inquiry on judicial corruption through the lens of qualitative research with Nigeria as a case study is highly understudied, and hence, this research fills the gap in the financial crime literature.

In this chapter I discuss judicial contributions to Italian penality. I look at the penal incentives produced by interactions between judicial and political classes, and ask whether judges and prosecutors have been forces for punitiveness or moderation. I discuss the relevance of the Italian case for broader analyses of Western penality.

My chapter offers a political-sociological account of judicial contributions to punishment. I analyse the penal incentives created by different national institutional set-ups, specifically addressing judicial contributions to penality using a framework developed by Joachim Savelsberg and Nicola Lacey. The framework examines judicial structure in the institutional context looking at the penal implications of bureaucratisation of the judiciary and the capacity for co-ordination between judges and politicians. I include judicial legitimacy as an additional dimension in this framework.

I conclude that the Italian judiciary have been forces for punitiveness and moderation. Their contributions can be systematised by looking at the waxing and waning of judicial legitimacy, and the consequent expansion and contraction of judicial powers. I claim that judicial legitimacy is also relevant to other (‘non-Italian’) analyses of judicial contributions to contemporary Western penality.

By adding legitimacy to investigations of judicial contributions to penality I provide an organising principle with which to analyse the penal role of Italian judicial actors. I thus allow Italy to be kept in conversation with existing comparative models, without assuming that it either conforms to the models entirely, or that the models should otherwise be eschewed. I use the Italian case to demonstrate the relevance of legitimacy when analysing judicial contributions to Western penality, arguing that changing legitimacy affects the terms and effect of interaction between judicial and political classes.

The purpose of this study is to examine corruption in the Nigeria judicial system, the implications on justice administration and the fight against corruption in the country, and proffer recommendations on ways to eradicate corruption in the system.

This paper is essentially a desk research with reliance on secondary source of data in published outlets such as journal articles, online articles and books.

There is prevalence of corruption in the judicial system, and it is one the obstacles hindering the fight against corruption in the country.

Its scope is limited to issue and content analysis of judicial corruption in Nigeria.

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.

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.

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.