Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Jurisdictional duality"

Industrial effluent regulations in Israel can be promulgated pursuant to four statutory sources. No clear boundaries delineating the scope of these laws exist, and some of them are neither environmental nor water laws per se. The resulting legal situation is one of confusion, duality and even contradiction both institutionally and substantively. A revision in the Israeli approach towards the regulation of industrial effluent is proposed, taking into consideration some elements of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Ideas are presented for setting up jurisdictional boundaries between the local and central government authorities to differentiate between organic loads and hazardous materials. In addition, the paper calls for criteria and discretionary limits on the setting up of permit conditions and enactment of regulations as well as the need for improvement of existing effluent criteria.

Introduction. The article examines the legal nature of judicial reconciliation with the participation of a judicial conciliator (hereinafter referred to as judicial reconciliation), and highlights the debatable nature of the topic under consideration. The authors state that it is necessary to disclose the legal nature of judicial reconciliation in order to clarify its place in the legal system of Russia and to identify functional links with other related institutions of substantive and procedural law. Problem statement. The article argues that the success of the introduction of the institution of judicial reconciliation into legal practice depends on the disclosure of its legal nature in the system of human rights tools and mechanisms. At the same time, the ambiguity of the term of “legal nature” itself contributes to uncertainty in this matter. It is proved that the content of the term of “legal nature” includes various signs of the phenomenon, which must be consistently disclosed in the process of cognition. The authors emphasize that the legal nature of judicial reconciliation is complex, dualistic. This is expressed in a combination of judicial (jurisdictional) and extra-judicial (non-jurisdictional, alternative) characteristics, which is clearly revealed in the dualism of the legal status of the judicial conciliator. Theoretical and empirical analysis. The analysis of the legislation shows that, on the one hand, a judicial conciliator is a former judge who has extensive practical experience in legal proceedings and a vision of the prospects for resolving the case; on the other hand, the judicial conciliator, while remaining part of the judicial system, is free from rigid conservativecorporatist judicial discipline when conducting judicial reconciliation and can, without excessive formalism and substantive resolution of the case, offer the parties mutually beneficial reconciliation conditions, under which the legal conflict will be resolved. Results. The authors conclude that the duality of the legal nature of judicial reconciliation is due to the convergence processes that take place in the Russian law and trends associated with the change in the configuration of the judiciary.

ABSTRACTThis research work shows analytically the genuine link between Science, Technology and Innovation (CTI) and Electoral Law in administrative and jurisdictional headquarters, as well as the projection in public investment in CTI, attending the CTI block, not only from its traditional appreciation as a public policy, if not but as a Human Right, since precisely the vision proposed will allow us to provide the CTI with an integral duality in favor of social welfare, forcing the State to comply with the minimum of public investment in this field.RESUMENEl presente trabajo de investigación muestra de forma analítica la genuina vinculación entre la Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CTI) y el Derecho Electoral en sede administrativa y jurisdiccional, así como la proyección en la inversión pública en CTI, atendiendo el bloque de CTI, no únicamente desde su perspectiva tradicional como política pública, sino como Derecho Humano, ya que precisamente la visión que se propone nos permitirá dotar a la CTI de una dualidad integral en pro del bienestar social, obligando al Estado a cumplir con el mínimo de inversión pública en el ramo.

The article delves into the social and legal significance of non-jurisdictional protection concerning the social rights of military personnel in Ukraine. The author delineates that the significance of these protective measures unfolds within three distinct contexts. Firstly, the state assumes the role of an employer responsible for ensuring and safeguarding the social rights of military personnel. This dynamic underscores the presence of a social risk for military personnel, stemming from the confluence of two conflicting roles within a single entity - that of being both the controlled and the controller. In a legal and democratic state, this duality necessitates equilibrium through the provision of non-state protection for the social rights of military personnel. Secondly, Ukraine is witnessing a burgeoning civil society, whose advocacy efforts in human rights bolster social security for individuals, society, and the state, with a potential focus on safeguarding the social rights of military personnel. Thirdly, non-jurisdictional mechanisms for protecting the social rights of military personnel harbor considerable human rights potential. The state's commitment to fully realizing this potential would directly enhance the overall social security of military personnel. The human rights potential of civil society actors materializes through three primary forms of human rights protection. Firstly, it involves exerting comprehensive and legitimate pressure on violators of social rights, without compromising the state's defense capabilities. Secondly, it entails targeted and lawful influence on offenders. Thirdly, it encompasses fostering solidarity among military personnel and addressing their sense of belonging to a nearly homogeneous group. This group comprehends the intricacies of social security issues facing military personnel and ensures the protection of the rights of its members. In conclusion, the article synthesizes the findings of the study and underscores the necessity of establishing a platform for safeguarding the rights and interests of military personnel. This platform, founded on institutional partnership, would convene delegates from diverse civil society entities engaged in the ongoing protection of the social and other rights of military personnel.

This article involves a survey of the treaty practice in ten jurisdictions, namely, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States (alphabetically) to find out which theory (monism or dualism) has been adopted by each of these states to give effect to (tax) treaties in their legal systems and to find out further what is the effect, if any, of the choice of a theory adopted by a state on the status enjoyed by (tax) treaties in that state's legal system and consequently on the phenomenon of (tax) treaty override. With a view to appreciate the similarities and dissimilarities in the attitude and practice of these jurisdictions, the author studies both, the general treaty practice and the tax treaty practice for each of these ten jurisdictions, and categorizes, on the basis of information gathered, different aspects of treaty-making such as the power to make (tax) treaties, need for pre-ratification parliamentary approval, mode of receiving (tax) treaties into a state's legal system, status of (tax) treaties as compared to the Constitution and domestic (tax) statutes. It is observed that while some jurisdictions follow the theory of monism so that their tax treaties take direct effect internally without anything more, others are dualists and their tax treaties, although binding internationally, do not take effect internally until transformed by legislative action. Substantial space has been devoted to preparing an inventory of the instances of tax treaty overrides in each of the ten jurisdictions and the judicial response thereto with a view to find out the attitude of the domestic courts of these jurisdictions to situations of potential treaty overrides. The exercise undertaken by the author reveals that in some of the jurisdictions, the judicial approach is to uphold the precedence of tax treaties over domestic tax statutes, while in others, the judicial trend is to give effect to the most recent expression of the sovereign will on the basis of the later-in-time rule. In the end, the author undertakes a comparative analysis to report any perceivable difference in the approach of the monist countries from that of the dualist countries to the phenomenon of treaty override.

Ada dua perbedaan prinsip sistem peradilan di berbagai negara hukum, yaitu: pertama: sistem unity of jurisdiction yang dianut oleh negara-negara hukum rule of law yang hanya mengenal satu set pengadilan yaitu pengadilan biasa (pengadilan umum) dan tidak mengenal eksistensi PTUN. Kedua: sistem duality of jurisdiction yang dianut oleh negara-negara hukum rechtsstaat dikenal adanya dua set pengadilan yaitu pengadilan biasa (pengadilan umum) dan PTUN, pengadilan umum berpuncak ke Mahkamah Agung sedangkan PTUN berpuncak ke Dewan Negara (Conseil d’Etat). Kedua sistem ini bukan hanya struktur organisasi pengadilan yang berbeda, tetapi substansi hukum maupun hukum acaranya juga berbeda. Untuk di Indonesia, hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sistem peradilan di Indonesia sangat unik, jika dilihat dari struktur organisasi peradilan maka lebih dekat pada sistem unity of jurisdiction, sedangkan jika dilihat dari prinsip-prinsip pengadilan atau tata cara penyelesaian sengketa maka lebih dekat pada sistem duality of jurisdicton sehingga penulis menyimpulkan bahwa sistem peradilan Indonesia adalah sistem campuran.The two main different principles in judicial system in the various legal states are namely (first): as the unity of jurisdiction system applied by rule of law which only consisted of civil court and, (second): the duality of jurisdiction system which applied by rechtstaat law states that is known consisted of civil court and administrative court. Civil court culminates in the Supreme Court while the Administrative Court culminates in the State Council (Conseil d'Etat). These two systems are not just different in court organizational hierarchy, but also different ini the legal substance and the legal procedural. The research reports show that the judicial system in Indonesia is very unique, from the judicial organizational hierarchy perspective is closer to the system of unity of jurisdiction, whereas from the principles of the court and the procedure of dispute settlement perspective is closer to the duality of system jurisdicton so the authors finally conclude that the judicial system of Indonesia is a mixture system.

AbstractThe pending dispute at the ICJ between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Italy on jurisdictional immunities of states bears on the hotly debated question of whether a state having committed a violation of jus cogens loses its immunity from civil jurisdiction abroad, as maintained by the Italian Court of Cassation. The article aims to demonstrate the untenability of the position of the Italian Court of Cassation, not only under current international customary law, but also under a prospective de lege ferenda. Nevertheless, different options are open to the ICJ to adjudicate the case, without impinging on possible future developments of state practice. The article closes by pointing at the risks that, in a strict dualist/pluralist perspective, not even an ICJ's decision in favour of Germany would eventually ensure compliance by Italian domestic judges.

The article describes issues related to the independence of administrative judges in France. The merits of French administrative judges are constantly being discussed. Since the establishment of the Council of State, administrative jurisdiction has not only received the respect it deserves but has also been subject to criticism for its legitimacy. Consideration of the position of a French administrative judge refers to the jurisdictional dualism that is characteristic of France. The Administrative Court regularly makes strong arguments in its favor; it has the legally enshrined right to exist and objective grounds for this. It serves the idea of justice and equality, carries out tasks that no one else can fulfill through addressing three different audiences: the administration and the outside political power, of which it is a branch, the applicant, and the court of general jurisdiction. At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the problems of a European judge who can change the legal identity of a state. Some foreign judges dare to question the legitimacy of European case law and thus defend their own legitimacy, but in France, this approach is unlikely to be observed. The author believes that administrative judges should accept the classic challenge of a relationship with the national authorities and rethink its legitimacy concerning the supranational judiciary.

In a recent article on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) (see “TEW eliminates Wave Particle Duality” in JAP, February 2015), the most controversial aspect was the claim that TEW provides a local realistic explanation of the Alain Aspect 1982 experiment. That claim was not proved. This article fills in that gap by providing a local realistic explanation of a Bell test experiment published in 1998 by Weihs, Jennewein, Simon, et al. Advanced TEW uses no hidden variables, and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of Bell’s theorem. It rejects wave particle duality. It violates the Bell inequalities, yet is local and realistic. Particles follow a bi-ray, which is composed of two elementary rays, traveling at the speed of light in opposite directions, coaxially, conveying no energy. As was the case with the previous article, the main obstacle to credibility is that these assumptions sound incredible. It is wise sometimes to tolerate ridiculous ideas, lest we fail to recognize a paradigm shift when one comes along. Another obstacle to credibility is the multitude of unanswered questions. A truly fruitful theory raises more questions than it answers, by a ratio of 100 to 1. TEW fulfills that definition of fruitfulness.

Section 94-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, which allows the Indian government (the executive) to notify any jurisdiction, by having regard to the lack of effective exchange of information with it, as a notified jurisdictional area (NJA) has been a bone of contention in a recent ruling delivered by the Madras High Court in India in T. Rajkumar case where the sole section 94-A notification issued in the year 2013 declaring Cyprus as a NJA was challenged along-with impugning the constitutional validity of section 94-A itself, which arguably may lead to an unilateral treaty override, as in the case of India-Cyprus DTAA. Both the statutory instruments were however upheld by the high court, and important to this judicial determination was the affirmation of adherence of India to the theory of ‘dualism’. In this article the author revisits the said contentious statutory instruments with threadbare-pointed legal analysis of the said judgement and other concomitant law and policy issues, along-with examination of the possible reactionary dispute resolution approaches on the international legal plane for resolving the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) issues, which are not ordinarily resolvable by the domestic courts.

La France est l'un des Etats qui a fait le choix de bâtir le pouvoir juridictionnel sur le partage de compétence entre deux ordres, l'ordre judiciaire et l'ordre administratif. Le principe de la dualité juridictionnelle découle de la summa divisio du système juridique français. Institué par la constitution de la deuxième République, très bien ancré dans le système juridique français et n'a jamais été remis en cause depuis. Il se veut en effet le garant contre l'arbitraire de l'Exécutif. Un principe sacro-saint qui a toujours gouverné le contentieux des étrangers et que le l'ancien Président de la République a nommément pointé du doigt lors de sa conférence de presse le 8 Janvier 2008 comme le principal responsable de l'engorgement des contentieux étrangers en le qualifiant de « bizarrerie française ». L'objectif de la présente thèse consiste à mettre toute la lumière sur les arcanes de la dualité juridictionnelle dans le contentieux des étrangers en France, puis étudier la possibilité d'une éventuelle unification des juridictions comme solution de substitution aux fins d'y remédier à cet engorgement ?
France is one of the states that chose to build the judicial power of the division of jurisdiction between two orders, the judiciary and the administrative order. The legal principle of duality, flows from the” summa division” of the French legal system. Established by the constitution of the Second Republic, well rooted in the French legal system and has never been questioned since. He wants, in fact, to be the guarantor against arbitrary action by the executive. A sacrosanct principle that has always governed the foreign nationals and that the former President of the Republic, namely pointed at its press conference of January 8, 2008 as the main cause of congestion in foreign litigation calling it a "quirk French." The objective of this thesis is to shed light on the mysteries of the jurisdictional duality in the foreign nationals in France, then consider a possible unification of the courts as an alternative to remedy to this congestion?

La dispersion du contentieux du travail en première instance est souvent décriée. La thèse examine cette complexité et dépasse le présupposé selon lequel l’unique solution réside dans l’unité juridictionnelle en recourant à la notion de pluralisme juridictionnel. Entendu comme la proposition d’un ordonnancement de la pluralité juridictionnelle plus respectueux des droits des justiciables, le pluralisme suppose en effet de limiter le risque de conflits de compétences et d’unifier le règlement des litiges actuellement éclaté entre plusieurs juridictions. La confrontation du contentieux du travail à ces exigences révèle qu’un pluralisme juridictionnel est envisageable en droit du travail mais qu’il ne peut qu’être circonscrit. Pleinement réalisable dans l’ordre judiciaire, sa mise en place semble en effet plus délicate au sein du dualisme juridictionnel. L’unité juridictionnelle devra dès lors être recherchée à l’égard des litiges pour lesquels le pluralisme s’avère impossible
The scattering of labour litigation in France between different first degree jurisdictions is often subject to criticism. The present thesis examines this complexity and goes beyond the preconception according to which the only solution resides in the unity of jurisdiction. That is achieved by using the notion of jurisdictional pluralism. That notion is therefore envisaged in a way that better respects the rights of the citizen. Indeed, pluralism implies limiting the chances of seeing conflicts of jurisdiction arise while simultaneously unifying litigation resolution that is presently split between different jurisdictions. Confronting labour litigation as it exists today to such requirements reveals that jurisdictional pluralism, even though possible in labour law, has to be restricted. Albeit fully applicable in the judicial order its implementation appears to be more difficult within the jurisdictional dualism. Therefore, unity of jurisdiction will need to be sought in litigations where applying pluralism appears impossible

Les balbutiements des États africains subsahariens francophones autour de l'organisation de leurs justices administratives respectives révèlent la réalité d'un processus d'importation du modèle français mal maitrisé. Si le procès de la dualité juridictionnelle peut ainsi être ouvert sur cet espace, il ne saurait aboutir à sa condamnation systématique. La spécificité de plus en plus poussée du contentieux des collectivités territoriales, de l‟urbanisme, de la question de l‟environnement de même que l'exposition du bien commun en Afrique à cette sorte d‟« invasion » des investisseurs et puissances extérieures ne commandent plus la seule spécialisation de la juridiction administrative. Son indépendance et son autonomie sont désormais indispensables pour saisir pleinement ces enjeux nouveaux ou renouvelés. Il faut néanmoins distinguer ce que le modèle français importé comporte d'incompatibles avec l'encadrement efficace de l'action administrative en Afrique francophone et l'ineffectivité des réformes instituant ce modèle. En clair, les enjeux, le contexte et l'environnement de réception de la dualité juridictionnelle en Afrique francophone doivent être réexaminés, réévalués afin de créer une justice administrative à la fois fidèle à des principes indispensables à son effectivité et proche des contingences sociologiques de son nouveau milieu
Between the rejections, the partial implementation and aborted implementation, the reforms regulating the juridic duality illustrate the feeling that they do not function well but as purely symbolic or, somehow, as they indicate a process not grasped well. Accordingly, the transition from monism to juridic duality does not lead to a serious development of the administrative issue qualitatively and quantitatively in the francophone African countries. Presumably, if the process of duality can be accommodated, it would not lead to its systematic condemnation. The increasing uniqueness of the collectivities' territorial issues, the urbanism, the environmental issues as well as the attraction of African wealth leading to a kind of “scramble” of investors and powerful stranger forces do not ask for the only specialization of the administrative jurisdiction. Its independence and autonomy are now necessary in order to fully meet the new and renewed challenges. Nevertheless, we must distinguish the incompatible properties in the French imported model from the efficient coaching of the administrative action in francophone Africa and the incongruences of the reforms regulating this model. Briefly, the scope, the context and the accommodating environment of the juridic duality should be re-examined, reassessed in order to create an administrative law both faithful to the principles useful to its efficiency and reflecting the sociological features of new area

La dispersion du contentieux du travail en première instance est souvent décriée. La thèse examine cette complexité et dépasse le présupposé selon lequel l’unique solution réside dans l’unité juridictionnelle en recourant à la notion de pluralisme juridictionnel. Entendu comme la proposition d’un ordonnancement de la pluralité juridictionnelle plus respectueux des droits des justiciables, le pluralisme suppose en effet de limiter le risque de conflits de compétences et d’unifier le règlement des litiges actuellement éclaté entre plusieurs juridictions. La confrontation du contentieux du travail à ces exigences révèle qu’un pluralisme juridictionnel est envisageable en droit du travail mais qu’il ne peut qu’être circonscrit. Pleinement réalisable dans l’ordre judiciaire, sa mise en place semble en effet plus délicate au sein du dualisme juridictionnel. L’unité juridictionnelle devra dès lors être recherchée à l’égard des litiges pour lesquels le pluralisme s’avère impossible
The scattering of labour litigation in France between different first degree jurisdictions is often subject to criticism. The present thesis examines this complexity and goes beyond the preconception according to which the only solution resides in the unity of jurisdiction. That is achieved by using the notion of jurisdictional pluralism. That notion is therefore envisaged in a way that better respects the rights of the citizen. Indeed, pluralism implies limiting the chances of seeing conflicts of jurisdiction arise while simultaneously unifying litigation resolution that is presently split between different jurisdictions. Confronting labour litigation as it exists today to such requirements reveals that jurisdictional pluralism, even though possible in labour law, has to be restricted. Albeit fully applicable in the judicial order its implementation appears to be more difficult within the jurisdictional dualism. Therefore, unity of jurisdiction will need to be sought in litigations where applying pluralism appears impossible

Malgré les reproches qui lui ont souvent été adressés, les nombreuses tentatives de réforme qui ont émaillé son histoire, la vieille loi sur les aliénés n’a pas empêché une évolution remarquable des soins vers plus de liberté, notamment par le biais de la sectorisation. L’inadaptation de la loi monarchiste a justifié l’intervention du législateur en 1990, mais elle était toute relative car la loi n°90-527 n’a fait que reprendre, certes en les rénovant, les moyens de contraindre aux soins fondés sur les exigences de l’ordre public. Or, l’application de la loi nouvelle, destinée à l’amélioration des droits et de la protection des personnes hospitalisées en raison de troubles mentaux, a eu un résultat paradoxal : une extension et un renforcement de la contrainte psychiatrique, qui ont fait ressurgir les critiques du dualisme juridictionnel auquel est soumis le contentieux de l’hospitalisation psychiatrique. Le Tribunal des conflits n’a jamais cessé de réaffirmer le principe de séparation des autorités administratives et judiciaires, écartant l’idée d’une unification du contentieux de l’hospitalisation sans consentement au profit du juge judiciaire. Mais par une décision du 17 février 1997, le Haut tribunal a opéré une rationalisation des compétences contentieuses qui a permis au dispositif juridictionnel de révéler son efficacité : l’administration, aujourd’hui, est contrainte de veiller au respect des procédures d’hospitalisation, la certitude d’une sanction lui est acquise en cas de manquement (Première partie). Toutefois le haut niveau de garantie des droits de la personne hospitalisée sans consentement est menacé. Depuis 1997, une réforme de la loi est annoncée comme imminente. Les propositions avancées par de nombreux rapports et études, qu’elles soient d’inspiration sanitaire ou sécuritaire, suscitaient des inquiétudes. Les dispositions relatives à la déclaration d’irresponsabilité pénale pour cause de trouble mental dans la loi n°2008-174 ne pouvaient que les entretenir, préfigurant une aggravation de la situation des personnes contraintes à des soins psychiatriques. Le projet de loi déposé sur le bureau de la Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale le 5 mai 2010 en apporte la confirmation. Le texte en instance devant les institutions parlementaires révèle une finalité sanitaire, mais le droit individuel à la protection de la santé parviendrait à justifier une contrainte que les motifs d’ordre public ne pourraient fonder ; l’obligation de soins psychiatriques ne serait plus uniquement fondée sur les manifestations extérieures de la maladie du point de vue de la vie civile. En outre, si les exigences récemment dégagées par le Conseil constitutionnel à l’occasion d’une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité portant sur le maintien de la personne en hospitalisation contrainte constituent une amélioration, la présence accrue du juge judiciaire dans les procédures n’apporterait aucun supplément de garantie dès lors que les dispositions nouvelles opèreraient une profonde transformation de la fonction du juge des libertés en la matière, notamment en l’associant à la décision d’obligation de soins. Contre toute attente, l’objet sanitaire de la mesure, lorsqu’il devient une fin en soi et n’est plus subordonné à l’ordre public, se révèle liberticide (Deuxième partie)
The old law on insane people has often been criticized but none of the numerous attempts of reform, that it has met throughout its history, has prevented the outstanding move of cares towards more liberty, notably through sectorization. The lack of adaptation of the monarchist law made the legislator act in 1990, but the action was very relative as 90-527 law only rephrased, with some updates, the means to constrain to a treatment abiding by public policy. But, the new law, intended for the improvement of liberty and the protection of hospitalized insane persons, had paradoxical results: an extension and a reinforcement of psychiatric constraint, which made reappear the criticisms of jurisdictional dualism, which psychiatric hospitalization is subjected to. The court relentlessly reaffirmed its attachment to the principle of separation of administrative and judiciary authorities, while it was rejecting the legal argument’s unification of the psychiatric hospitalization without agreement in favor of the judicial judge. The High Court, with an adjudication dated from February 17th, 1997, made a rationalization of disagreement’s skills which allowed the jurisdictional plan to reveal its efficiency : administration, nowadays, has to make sure the hospitalization is respectful of procedures, it would be compulsorily sanctioned in case of a breach of the rules (First part). Nevertheless, hospitalized persons without acceptance should worry about the high-level of guarantee of their rights. Since 1997, an imminent reform of this law has been expected. Numerous reports and studies have led to sanitarian or security order proposals, which sparked concern. The measures about the statement of penal irresponsibility due to mental disorder, and tackled in 2008-174 law, kept feeding these concerns making the situation of persons forced to psychiatric cares worse. The bill submitted to the President of the national assembly on May 5th, 2010, confirmed this evolution. The text pending the parliamentary institution has a sanitarian aim, but the individual right to health protection would justify a constraint that public order can not establish ; the necessity of psychiatric cares would not only be based on the external manifestation of the disease as an aspect of civilian life. Moreover, even if the constitutional Council’s requirements, defined during a major questioning of the constitutionality of the maintenance of constrained hospitalization, are an enhancement, the increased presence of a judicial judge during the procedure would not ensure better guarantee as long as the new disposals operate a deep transformation of judges' duties, notably if they are associated with the decision of constrained cares. Against all expectations, the sanitarian aspect of the measure, when it turns to be an end in itself and is not dependent on public order, is dwindling liberties (Second part)

La perspective européenne a renouvelé l’intérêt de la question du maintien ou de la suppression du dualisme juridictionnel en France à travers deux approches : la résistance aux modèles concurrents d’organisation juridictionnelle d’une part, le crible des standards européens d’autre part. Considéré comme un modèle d’organisation juridictionnelle, le système français a inspiré la majorité des Etats européens. Le phénomène a néanmoins été temporaire. Désormais, la plupart des Etats européens ont un système d’organisation juridictionnelle qui se rattache à un autre modèle. Engager le système français dans une telle voie est juridiquement faisable mais peu opportun en pratique. Le système français en tant que modèle – quoique minoritaire – d’organisation juridictionnelle a donc vocation à perdurer. Sur un autre front, l’alignement du système français sur les standards européens a également fait émerger l’hypothèse de sa suppression. Les condamnations, réelles ou potentielles, de la juridiction administrative et du procès mené devant elle, ainsi que du Tribunal des conflits et de la procédure suivie devant lui, ont montré que les réformes étaient inévitables et imposé de revenir sur des pratiques séculaires bien établies. Elles ont également contribué à rapprocher la juridiction administrative de la juridiction judiciaire et le procès administratif du procès civil. « Sauvé » au prix de nombreuses transformations, le système n’en est pas moins parvenu à préserver ses caractéristiques essentielles, prouvant sa capacité d’adaptation. Un temps affaibli, le dualisme juridictionnel n’a, en définitive, pas été altéré. Mieux, son fondement technique, justification contemporaine du dualisme juridictionnel, en est sorti renforcé
The European perspective has shed new light on the question of whether maintaining or ruling out jurisdictional dualism in France through two main approaches: on the one hand, the resilience of substitutable models and, on the other hand, the scrutiny of European standards. Considered as a model, the French system has inspired the majority of states in Europe. This wave of inspiration has nevertheless been short-lived. Indeed, most states in Europe have established a judicial system, which is different from the French model. Bringing the French system towards the one adopted by most states in Europe is juridically feasible but raises several issues in practice. As a result, the French system, albeit minor amongst the European states, is probably prone to live on. Furthermore, bringing the French system towards European standards raised the question of a likely end of it. In fact, the French system came under critics, whether effective or potential, of its administrative courts and legal proceedings, together with critics concerning its so-called “Tribunal des conflits” and the legal proceedings. These critics point to the fact that reforming the French system was inevitable. Such reforms led the French system back on some of its secular anchored practices. Eventually, reforms also contributed to bring closer both the administrative court and the administrative legal proceedings to both civil court and civil legal proceedings. Saved at the cost of numerous reforms, the French system nevertheless managed to preserve its basic structures. This in turn provides evidence that the French system is able to adapt itself to an evolving European environment. Finally, the technical founding principles of jurisdictional dualism have been reinforced

This study examines the role of customary courts in the delivery of justice in South Sudan. In doing so, it analyses the legal background, the hierarchy and composition of the customary courts. The considerations behind the constitutional recognition of the customary law courts in the current constitutional dispensation and the jurisdiction of customary courts are limited to customary matters and only criminal cases with a customary interface. It is noted that the customary Judges do not only exercise judicial functions but also play executive and legislative functions which contravene the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Reconciliation and compensation are noted as the major principles applied in the customary law courts. The major concern is that most practices in the customary law courts violate fundamental human rights.
Public, Constitutional and International Law
LLM

This chapter reflects on jurisdiction-specific approaches to the domestication of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), considering in particular the domestic legal status of the CRPD and the relevance of that legal status for case law. The chapter explores four dimensions of the CRPD’s legal status: direct effect; indirect interpretative effect (where the CRPD influences the interpretation given to domestic law); use of the CRPD because of commitments to another international treaty; and absence of domestic legal status. With the exception of the first category, all dimensions can potentially present themselves in legal systems which tend towards the monist approach as well as in those which tend towards the dualist approach. The chapter discusses examples of relevant case law and reflects on similarities and differences emerging from a comparison of that case law.

Jurisdiction is power. Subject matter jurisdiction provides the source of courts’ power to adjudicate disputes and thereby establish precedent for posterity. In the United States, federal and state courts share this power unevenly. The limited nature of federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction rests on theoretical assumptions about the superiority of the federal judiciary—namely, that federal courts offer a superior degree of neutrality, expertise, and uniformity than state courts do. This superiority premise often is invoked to justify the authorization or denial of federal subject matter jurisdiction, based on value judgments about which kinds of disputes deserve the option of adjudication in the superior system. As a doctrine allocating power, subject matter jurisdiction sits squarely in the path of Critical Legal Theory, which asks whether and how law subordinates outsiders, as well as how we might address that subordination. Critical theory supplies tools to interrogate both the superiority premises and related value judgments for their roles in oppression or empowerment. Viewed with a critical lens, the evolution of diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction reveals the abiding interests of powerful commercial parties in the federal courts and the federal courts’ duality as both protectors and frustrators of subordinated groups’ rights.

This chapter discusses the general relationship of EU law with domestic law. The positivist account of law produces two paradoxical accounts of EU law. The first account is the theory of European ‘monism’, supposing that the EU is the foundation of all law in the member states. The second is ‘radical pluralism’ which says that there are no legal rules applying to the relations between EU law and domestic law. They are both mistaken, because they are both based on a picture of law as a hierarchy or ‘system’ of rules created by a formal doctrine of legal validity. Under the positivist view, inspired by Kelsen and Hart, all legal ‘systems’ must compete for supremacy of their ‘basic norm’ or ‘rule of recognition’. In this sense EU law must compete with domestic law. Legal positivism is false and must be rejected. Dualism, by contrast, relies on the rival theory of law which says that law is a matter of substantive moral judgment. It has no need for a single ‘ultimate’ rule or fact at its foundation. In this analysis, domestic law and international law do not compete because they apply to distinct political questions. The first is an answer to the problems of jurisdiction and the second is the answer to the relations among states. Dualism is the best legal interpretation of the relations between EU law and domestic law.

This chapter examines the relationship between parody and an author’s moral rights. It first traces the evolution of the concept of moral rights as a means of providing protection not only of the authors’ personal interests but also the public interest before discussing the reasons why moral rights might conflict with parodies. It considers two competing theories underlying the protection of authorial interests—the ‘monist’ theory and the ‘dualist’ theory—and their implications for the parody exception. It also explains how jurisdictions differ in the nature and scope of protection afforded to moral rights, noting that the parody exception in ‘copyright’ law does not extend to moral rights. The chapter goes on to explore the author’s paternity and integrity rights as well as their right against false attribution. It shows that, in the case of parodies, an overlap exists between the regimes applied to moral and economic rights.

This chapter shows how national courts receive European Union (EU) law by way of dualism in the same way they receive international law. From the member states’ point of view EU law is not the law of a new jurisdiction but the law of an international legal order. Incorporation is not a simple transfer. Member state courts incorporate EU law through three structural principles: ‘conditional primacy’, ‘institutional tolerance’, and ‘integrity’. These principles are uniquely relevant to the transnational nature of EU law. The member states remain independent political communities. Integrity, thus, applies to EU law on the basis that the EU is a community of communities of principle. The ideals of a community of principle apply to the EU only when it is seen as a union of peoples that come together on the basis of the law of nations. The practical or deliberative understanding of law provides an account of the relationship between domestic and EU law without paradox.

Abstract The principal civil law jurisdictions in continental Europe have a Civil Code and a Trade or Commercial Code (France, Germany), creating what some have called a ‘dualism’ of private law. The Digest of Laws of the Russian Empire contained separate volumes devoted to civil and commercial regulation. In 1917–18 Soviet policy-makers had little opportunity to reflect on the role of civil and commercial law in a rapidly socializing economy. Some entertained naive assumptions about the rapid withering away of law and the legal system; however, the survival of the regime in the midst of civil strife and a hostile international community quickly took precedence over any grandiose transition to a new economic order. In the period of War Communism (1917–20) private entrepreneurship was discouraged, only during the NEP (1921–28) to be positively encouraged. It was during the 1920s that economic analytical techniques, such as input-output analysis, were developed as tools for comprehending inter-sectoral relationships in the economy, so essential for economic planning.

Abstract Religious freedom understood as a natural or legal right is a modern development, but it is the product of ancient Christian themes, shaped by modern pluralism, and channeled through Enlightenment institutions, such as constitutional government and rule of law. Three themes in particular have been crucial: the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God, the jurisdictional dualism of God and Caesar, and the sanctity of a sincere and uncoerced conscience. In the Middle Ages, these themes inspired a struggle for freedom of the church. Later, they supported a commitment to freedom of conscience. These freedoms have been the essential ingredients of the modern conception of religious freedom. Given its foundations in Christian themes, religious freedom faces uncertain prospects in an increasingly post-Christian world. In the United States, claims to religious freedom are challenged and often overridden in the name of other rights or interests framed in terms of equality or nondiscrimination. Scholars frequently conclude that there is no persuasive contemporary justification for singling out religion for special legal protection. And the uncertain prospects are hardly limited to religious freedom, narrowly conceived. The development of religious freedom has been closely associated with other rights—freedoms of thought and expression, in particular—and, as James Madison recognized, the logic of these rights is intertwined. Hence, the fate of religious freedom may influence the fate of other central elements of the constitutional tradition as well.

This chapter examines the nature and scope of obligations in the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The first sentence of Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement re-states a basic principle of international law: pacta sunt servanda. It makes clear that the obligations imposed by the Agreement are to be given effect by Members within their respective jurisdictions. Neither this article nor any other provision of the Agreement specifies how such obligations are to be implemented. In countries that follow a ‘dualist’ approach to international law, implementing regulations would be needed, as the Agreement would not be recognized as self-executing. In those adopting a ‘monist’ approach, the Agreement may be directly applied by judicial and administrative authorities, at least to the extent that the provisions are clear enough and self-contained. The way in which the Agreement is implemented may have important implications on the conditions for the access to and use of technology, particularly in developing countries, and on their economic and social development. It is crucial, therefore, to clearly identify the options left by the Agreement to implement its provisions in a manner that is as consistent as possible with Members’ interests and strategies.

Abstract This chapter offers a thematic overview of the contours of British and Irish Catholic political theology between 1640 and 1745, a period in which fundamental questions of political and ecclesiastical authority were hotly contested in both Catholic and Protestant contexts. It examines how Catholics drew on older traditions, such as Christian dualism, when considering the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority. These traditions intersected with a range of competing understandings about the vexed issue of papal authority. As strict papalists continued to lose political influence during this period, a variety of moderate and anti-papalist positions proliferated. Blackloism was one such anti-papalist position, but others emerged throughout Britain and Ireland as Catholics struggled to come to agreement about a mutually acceptable alternative ecclesiology and referred to contemporary Continental European political theologies, including Gallicanism, Jansenism, and Quietism. Ecclesiological matters had implications for how Catholics interacted with the Protestant State, both in terms of demonstrating political loyalty and in terms of contending with that State’s jurisdiction over interior conscience. These interrelated issues were encapsulated in Catholic attempts to secure liberty of conscience by revising the Oath of Allegiance. This chapter examines how Catholics conceptualized the individuality of conscience in the period and deployed moral theologies, like Probabilism, to negotiate their relationship with Protestant authorities. It demonstrates that political theology was not solely the preserve of abstract theory, but was enmeshed in British and Irish Catholic political projects, and consequently offers insight into how Catholics informed events in the ‘mainstream’ political narrative of the period.

In the Turkish law, the most characteristic example of de facto action is confiscation without expropriation. A certain case is defined as confiscation without expropriation when an immovable property belonging to someone was occupied by the Administration for being used in public service and the occupation is not based on an expropriation procedure established in accordance with the rules and principles specified in the legislation. In that vein, it has been accepted that de facto confiscation resulting from unlawful acts of the Administration does not differ from wrongful acts of private persons, and thus such administrative acts should be subject to ordinary jurisdiction just like in the case of damages arising from wrongful acts of private persons. However, confiscation without expropriation is not always of this nature. In certain cases, although a given immovable property is not exposed to a de facto confiscation without expropriation, it may have been specified as a green area on the zoning plan. In such a case, the owner’s authorities deriving from property rights will be restricted. This situation may be considered a legal confiscation without expropriation. This study investigates the dualist structure resulting from the temporary Article 6 of the Law no. 2942 on Expropriation amended by Article 21 of the Law no. 6487 and the temporary Article 7 added to the Law of Expropriation by Article 22 of the same Law.