Search results

Hybrid forms of international criminal justice have been lauded for combining the political and procedural legitimacy of international tribunals with increased attention to the local contexts where mass crimes occurred. This work critically examines the hybrid legal structure of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a novel post-conflict institution empowered to draw from both international and Sierra Leonean law. Although formally hybrid, the Court neglects domestic law in practice, suggesting that “hybridity” refers more to a rhetorical strategy aimed at legitimating its work than to its ontological status. By symbolically including and substantively excluding domestic law, the court's legal structure inadvertently resembles a colonial form of legal pluralism rather than a hybrid jurisdiction.

X = multiple interpretations

Historians have long understood that transforming people into property was the defining characteristic of Atlantic World slavery. This chapter examines litigation in British colonial Vice Admiralty Courts in order to show how English legal categories and procedures facilitated this process of dehumanization. In colonies where people were classified as chattel property, litigants transformed local Vice Admiralty Courts into slave courts by analogizing human beings to ships and cargo. Doing so made sound economic sense from their perspective; it gave colonists instant access to an early modern English legal system that was centered on procedures and categories. But for people of African descent, it had decidedly negative consequences. Indeed, when colonists treated slaves as property, they helped to create a world in which Africans were not just like things, they were things. Through the very act of categorization, they rendered factual what had been a mere supposition: that Africans were less than human.

British colonization of Australia had lasting consequences for Australia’s legal system. Although designed as a “one law for all system” based on the English common law, the reality was, and is, that there have always been people regulating their lives according to their own distinctive culture and religion. Recognition of de facto legal pluralism, has only recently given rise to instances of de jure legal recognition. The latter necessitated a role for cultural expertise in a range of legal cases. The first considered is how social science expertise was employed in redressing the dispossession of the continent’s first peoples: indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. The landmark case of Mabo No 2 laid the legal ground for native title land ownership which fueled a demand for cultural experts in indigenous traditions, laws, and customs. The second aspect is Australia’s response to recent immigration from non-European nations, including from Muslim countries. Many Muslims continue to regulate their interpersonal relationships exclusively, or partially, by principles of Islamic law and their “homeland” culture. This is particularly evident in family matters and the prism for exploring the nascent role for cultural expertise is through post-divorce parenting orders. The third issue is the extent to which a court can accept an accused’s cultural practice or religious belief as a defense to a criminal act or omission. In all three, who is a “cultural expert” can be contentious. While cultural expertise in indigenous matters is well established, the role for cultural experts in the resolution of family disputes and criminal cases is just emerging.

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.

The paper aims to argue the case for the introduction of a global anti‐money laundering (AML) court. The proposed court as an institution can engender a rule‐based ethos as well as an environment for the transposition of AML regimes and requisite global changes into the society.

The paper was written by exploiting the significance of the court system to the development of any society. In particular, the paper draws on a pivotal role played by the European Court of Justice in enhancing economic integration of European member countries. Another example utilised by this paper was the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) in the WTO. The DSM evolved an effective framework for settling international trade disputes and fundamentally helped to streamline the system. This paper is of the contention that the court would ease the adoption of global AML regimes and consequently ease the co‐existence of countries in relation to global AML initiatives.

The paper has delineated that any global initiatives either on money laundering (ML) or otherwise will have to reside in a form of institutional framework for them to work effectively. Short of that, it is possible that there will be enormous challenges for global AML regimes to function properly as envisaged.

The author is cognizant of the fact that states are still mandated to veto his prepositions based on the principle of sovereignty of nations. States can also refuse to lend their support – in its various dimensions to the proposed court.

It has to be noted that creating global AML regimes that are not going to work is not good enough and in case it amounts to a wastage of scarce resources that would better be utilised somewhere else.

ML in its various manifestations has far reaching consequences for lives of people wherever it is committed and should be accorded the seriousness it deserves.

The paper has been written based on the appreciation of the need to create enforcement mechanisms of engendered global AML/combating financing of terrorism (CFT) regimes. There are so many regimes masquerading as global, having been constituted with the mandate that give them a global reach and yet, they do not live up to their expectation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of serendipity in legal information seeking behavior of family law advocates, whom act in a challenging information environment that lacks published court rulings.

A quantitative research using a web-based structured questionnaire, among Israeli family law advocates. Single stage systematic sampling, with random starting point and no recurring pattern of each sixth family law advocate on the Israel Bar Advocates List, was applied. Data from 135 Israeli family law advocates were used for analysis.

Electronic information sources were found as most serendipitous; family law advocates were identified as super encounterers; four types of professional background concerns and seven legal professional contributions of the unexpected encounters with court rulings, were identified. Furthermore, findings support several frameworks presented on earlier information encounter literature.

Data absence on demographic and professional variables distributions of Israeli family law advocates was a limiting factor, compensated by the systematic sampling method used, thus can be regarded to reflect the views of the entire study population. Surveys’ reliance on self-reporting recalls of serendipitous events is also a limiting factor, though predicted and acceptable in this matter since chance encounters occur unexpectedly and are complex to capture.

Chance encounters may expose lawyers to meaningful information it is unlikely they were able to find because its limited publication, and assist them keep up with current law for better serves their clients.

The study augments the current empirically based knowledge on serendipity and provides insights into legal information chance encounters among a little-studied group of knowledge workers: family law advocates.

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal framework for court-annexed dispute resolution in courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria, Malaysia and Singapore. The major part of the study is dedicated to propose reforms in the administration of justice system in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the relevance of such reforms to the ongoing reforms in the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries.

This is an integrative literature review, which adopts a comparative approach in analyzing the conceptual framework of amicable dispute resolution in the modern world with particular reference to the Sharī‘ah court.

The findings of this research illustrate the adaptability of the practices in Malaysia and Singapore in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the MENA region.

An exposition of the dispute resolution processes in Islamic law reveals the relevance of these processes in modern reforms of the administration of justice system. The practical implications of this study include the streamlining of the rules and procedures of modern Sharī‘ah courts in post-revolution Arab countries to allow for court-annexed amicable (alternative) dispute resolution initiatives.

As far as it is known, this is the first conceptual study on the court-annexed dispute resolution frameworks of Sharī‘ah courts in three commonwealth jurisdictions.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

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.