Legal systems: judges and judicial powers Books

Book SynopsisIn the early twenty-first century, courts have become versatile actors in the governance of many constitutional democracies, and judges play a variety of roles in politics and policy making. Assembling papers penned by academic specialists on high courts around the world, and presented during a year-long Andrew W. Mellon Foundation John E. Sawyer Seminar at the University of California, Berkeley, this volume maps the roles in governance that courts are undertaking and the ways they have come to matter in the political life of their nations. It offers empirically rich accounts of dramatic judicial actions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, exploring the political conditions and judicial strategies that have fostered those assertions of power and evaluating when and how courts'' performance of new roles has been politically consequential. By focusing on the content and consequences of judicial power, the book advances a new agenda for the comparative study of courts.Trade Review'Consequential Courts constitutes a major contribution to the comparative study of courts. It provides abundant and detailed examples of politically consequential behaviour of many courts which are not always the object of academic research. It provides abundant and detailed examples of politically consequential behaviour of many courts which are not always the object of academic research. It sets an agenda for future research in this area, and provides much food for thought on the methodological problems associated with large-scale comparative studies of Courts.' Sebastian Castro Quiroz, The Cambridge Law JournalTable of ContentsPart I. Expanding Judicial Roles in New or Restored Democracies: 1. The politics of courts in democratization: four junctures in Asia Tom Ginsburg; 2. Fragmentation? Defection? Legitimacy? Explaining judicial roles in post-communist 'colored revolutions' Alexei Trochev; 3. Constitutional authority and judicial pragmatism: politics and law in the evolution of South Africa's constitutional court Heinz Klug; 4. Distributing political power: the constitutional tribunal in post-authoritarian Chile Druscilla L. Scribner; 5. The transformation of the Mexican Supreme Court into an arena for political contestation Mónica Castillejos-Aragón; Part II. Expanding Judicial Roles in Established Democracies: 6. Courts enforcing political accountability: the role of criminal justice in Italy Carlo Guarnieri; 7. The Dutch Hoge Raad: judicial roles played, lost, and not played Nick Huls; 8. A consequential court: the US Supreme Court in the twentieth century Robert A. Kagan; 9. Judicial constitution-making in a divided society - the Israeli case Amnon Reichman; 10. Public interest litigation and the transformation of the Supreme Court of India Manoj Mate; 11. The judicial dynamics of the French and European fundamental rights revolution Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser; 12. Constitutional courts as bulwarks of secularism Ran Hirschl; Part III. Four 'Provocations': 13. Why the legal complex is integral to theories of consequential courts Terence C. Halliday; 14. Judicial power: getting it and keeping it John Ferejohn; 15. Out of phase: politics, regimes, and regime politics Mark A. Graber; 16. The mighty problem continues Martin Shapiro; 17. Conclusion: of judicial ships and winds of change Diana Kapiszewski, Gordon Silverstein and Robert A. Kagan.

Read more less

Book SynopsisA sequel to Bauer and Dawuni''s pioneering study on gender and the judiciary in Africa (Routledge, 2016), International Courts and the African Woman Judge examines questions on gender diversity, representative benches, and international courts by focusing on women judges from the continent of Africa.Drawing from postcolonial feminism, feminist institutionalism, feminist legal theory, and legal narratives, this book provides fresh and detailed narratives of seven women judges that challenge existing discourse on gender diversity in international courts. It answers important questions about how the politics of judicial appointments, gender, geographic location, class, and professional capital combine to shape the lives of women judges who sit on international courts and argues the need to disaggregate gender diversity with a view to understanding intra-group differences.International Courts and the African Woman Judge will be of interest to a variety of audTrade Review'The voices of African women judges have rarely been given space in judicial scholarship. These rich narratives therefore provide a welcome and overdue corrective. Weaving together the personal and the political, their accounts remind us just how much African women judges have achieved in the international judiciary and yet how far there is still to go in securing gender equality. By adopting a conscious intersectional lens and drawing out the differences between the judges as well as their shared experiences, the book also provides a valuable counter to the dangers of essentialism. Through the stories of these remarkable women who achieved so many ‘firsts’ in their field, we also learn something of the wider stories of pioneering women generally, and African women in particular, who have fought to take their place in the international and domestic courts and who provide such powerful role models for the next generation of women judges.' - Kate Malleson, Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London'Dawuni and Kuenyehia’s immensely important book unpacks the diversity of women who sit on the bench of international courts and tribunals. The book disaggregates "gender" on judicial benches and invites readers and scholars to pay attention to intra-group differences and consider the multiple identities that the African woman judge navigates in the particular field of international courts. The book accomplishes this sensitive task by giving voice to these female Black/African women themselves, powerfully gathering and analyzing narratives of the legal and personal journeys that they have traveled. This book is to be very strongly recommended not only to all those interested in gender and judging, but to all scholars and actors committed to critical readings of international law, institutions and courts.' - Stéphanie Hennette-Vauchez, Professor of Public Law, Paris Nanterre UniversityTable of ContentsForeword [Hon. Gabrielle Kirk McDonald] 1. Introduction: Challenging Gender Universalism and Unveiling the Silenced Narratives of the African Woman Judge [Josephine Jarpa Dawuni] 2. Women Judges in International Courts and Tribunals –The Quest for Equal Opportunities [Justice Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba] 3. Julia Sebutinde: An Unbreakable Cloth [Nienke Grossman] 4. Akua Kuenyehia: Leaving a Mark Along the Journey for Human Rights [Josephine Jarpa Dawuni] 5. Fatoumata Dembélé Diarra: Trajectory of A Malian Magistrate and Civil Society Advocate to The International Criminal Court [Sara Dezalay] 6. Sophia Akuffo: Balancing the Equities [Kuukuwa Andam and Sena Dei-Tutu] 7. Justina Kelello Mafoso- Guni: The Gendering of Judicial Appointment Processes in African Courts [Rachel Ellett] 8. Elsie Nwanwuri Thompson: The Trajectory of a Noble Passion [Rebecca Emiene Badejogbin] 9. Conclusion: International Courts and The African Woman Judge: Unlocking Doors, Leaving A Legacy [Josephine Jarpa Dawuni and Akua Kuenyehia]

Read more less

Book SynopsisExamines and measures the extent to which statutory language affects judicial behavior. How does the language of legislative statutes affect judicial behavior? Scholars of the judiciary have rarely studied this question despite statutes being, theoretically, the primary opportunity for legislatures to ensure that those individuals who interpret the law will follow their preferences. In Checking the Courts, Kirk A. Randazzo and Richard W. Waterman offer a model that integrates ideological and legal factors through an empirical measure of statutory discretion. The model is tested across multiple judicial institutions, at both the federal and state levels, and reveals that judges are influenced by the levels of discretion afforded in the legislative statutes. In those cases where lawmakers have clear policy preferences, legislation encourages judges to strictly interpret the plain meaning of the law. Conversely, if policy preferences are unclear, legislation leaves open the possibility that judges will make decisions based on their own ideological policy preferences. Checking the Courts thus provides us with a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between law and ideology.

Read more less

Book Synopsis Exploring the little-known history behind the legal doctrine of prior appropriation--first in time is first in right--used to apportion water resources in the western United States, this book focuses on the important case of Wyoming v. Colorado (1922). U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter, a former Chief Justice of Wyoming, ruled in that state''s favor, finding that prior appropriation applied across state lines--a controversial opinion influenced by cronyism. The dicta in the case, that the U.S. Government has no interest in state water allocation law, drove the balkanization of interstate water systems and resulted in the Colorado River Interstate Compact between Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California. The exhaustive research that has gone into this book has uncovered the secret that Associate Justice Van Devanter had waited eleven years to publish his opinion in this important, but politically self-serving, caseTable of ContentsPrologue: Of Water, Men and the LawPart I. The Times 1. The Nation Moves West (1830–1880) 2. Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism (1859–1938) 3. Economic Fortunes and Misfortunes (1860–1875) 4. The Prior Appropriation Doctrine (1840s–Present) 5. Equitable Apportionment (1902–Present) 6. Interstate Compacts (1922–Present)Part II. The ManWillis the Lawyer (1812–1894) 7. Young Willis Van Devanter 8. Cincinnatus (1833–1885) 9. Watching the Court (1870s, 1880s)10. Willis Goes West (1883)11. The Warren Machine (1884–1890)12. Willis and the "Johnson County War" (1890–1892)13. Banditti of the Plains (1893–1896)Willis the Politician/Bureaucrat14. Willis' Wyoming Politics Go National (1892–1896)15. Cleveland's Second Chance, Senator Warren and the McKinley Administration (1895–1897)16. Assistant Attorney General Van Devanter (1897–1903)Willis the Judge17. Van Devanter's Eighth Circuit Decisions (1903–1911)18. Reasonable Rail Rates, the Sherman Act (1890–1911)19. The Supreme Court Turns White (1908–1911)20. The Sherman Act at the Supreme Court21. "Good Fellows" Willis and William (1921–1922)Part III. The Laramie River Litigation22. Wyoming v. Colorado (1903–1913)23. Who Controls the Water? (1902–1917)24. Development Under the Reclamation Act and Return to Court (1905–1922)25. Judicial Harmony (1922)26. Natural Resource or Interstate Commerce? (1921–1923)27. Van Devanter's Surreptitious Composition of the Opinion and Decree (1922)28. Wyoming v. Colorado, Final Opinion Published (1922)29. Where Was the Balance of the Court on June 5, 1922? (1922)30. The Decree and Holding of Wyoming v. ColoradoPart IV. Implications for Water Law31. What of the Merits of Wyoming v. Colorado?32. What of the Effect of the Decision in Wyoming v. Colorado?33. The Case for RecusalPart V. Willis Van Devanter's Justice34. Van Devanter's Indian Cases (1897–1921)35. Van Devanter's Income Tax Cases (1920–1925)36. The Four Horsemen37. The Measure of a Justice38. FinisEpilogue: That Was Then, This Is NowChapter NotesBibliographyIndex

Read more less

Book SynopsisForegrounding religious, racialized and gendered disputes, Decision Making and Controversies in State Supreme Courts examines state supreme court decision making during controversies. Using case studies within Alabama, Louisiana, and Wisconsin, Salmon Shomade identifies and analyses the predominant factors influencing decision making in times of court contention. In this book, Shomade assesses how the justices' interpersonal dynamics and controversial issues of religion, race, and gender impact their decision making. Specifically, the book focuses on former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments monument crisis, Louisiana Chief Justice Bernette Johnson and her elevation dispute, and former Wisconsin Justice David Prosser and his conflicts with two female colleagues. The book contributes to the literature on decision making in state appellate courts by building upon established models utilized for assessing these courts.Trade ReviewIn this book Salmon Shomade probes three extraordinary episodes in state supreme courts, analyzing their impact on those courts and their implications for explanation of judicial behavior. Taking a careful and creative approach, Shomade provides valuable insights on decision making in appellate courts. -- Lawrence Baum, The Ohio State University"Like Martin Shapiro before him, Shomade convincingly argues that political scientists must broaden their focus beyond the U.S. Supreme Court and include state courts if we truly want to understand courts as political institutions and test dominant models. Other scholars have studied increasingly contested judicial races as a facet of political realignment, but Shomade takes the inquiry deeper to the institution itself, exposing the significant racial and gender dimensions of political and interpersonal conflict, offering a rare intersectional approach to law and courts." - Sally Kenney, Tulane University -- Sally Kenney, Tulane UniversityTable of ContentsPrefaceIntroductionAcknowledgmentsChapter 1: Decision Making in the U.S Supreme Court and State Supreme CourtsChapter 2: Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court 2001–2003Chapter 3: Elevating Chief Justice Bernette Johnson in LouisianaChapter 4: Verbal and Physical Assaults in Wisconsin Supreme CourtChapter 5: Controversies, State Court Judges and Decision MakingBibliography

Read more less

Book SynopsisThis book presents an empirical analysis of the UK Supreme Court's output over its first ten years, with a specific focus on each individual judge's contribution to each case. It shows that judges, like all of us, are human; it would be difficult to imagine that any of us, even in our most professional capacity, could act completely independently of our predilections, motivations and biases. The same is true for the judges sitting on the UK's highest court.Drawing on insights from a bespoke dataset of judgments, this work discerns trends and tendencies across each judge's voting patterns and the reasoning they adopt when disposing of cases. It not only highlights areas of divergence, but also shows how each of the judges tended to vote in different contexts, including which were more likely to overturn appeals from lower courts, side with certain parties such as the state or underdogs, and find liability in various areas (tort, contract, criminal, EU, immigration and tax law, with a special focus on human rights cases). Another section illustrates the differences between the judges when it comes to judicial reasoning, such as their approach to precedent and preferred methods of statutory interpretation. This work shows that different judges exercise their power in different ways. Some are more comfortable with pushing boundaries whilst others are more restrained. Some grant the state a lot of leeway whilst others apply heavy scrutiny. Some are, as Lord Denning suggested, ''bold spirits'' whilst others are ''timorous souls''. It shows, at least when it comes to the Supreme Court, that it matters who our judges are.

Read more less

Book SynopsisAn instant NewYorkTimes bestseller:An acclaimed legal scholar?s ?important? (New York Times) and ?fascinating? (Economist) exposé of how the Supreme Court uses unsigned and unexplained orders to change the law behind closed doors. The Supreme Court has always had the authority to issue emergency rulings in exceptional circumstances. But since 2017, the Court has dramatically expanded its use of the behind-the-scenes ?shadow docket,? regularly making decisions that affect millions of Americans without public hearings and without explanation, through cryptic late-night rulings that leave lawyers?and citizens?scrambling. The Court?s conservative majority has used the shadow docket to green-light restrictive voting laws and bans on abortion, and to curtail immigration and COVID vaccine mandates. But Americans of all political stripes should be worried about what the shadow docket portends for the rule of law, argues Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. In this rigorous yet accessible book, he issues an urgent call to bring the Court back into the light.

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book SynopsisThe "rule of law" stands at the heart of the American legal system. But the rule of law does not require judges slavishly to follow the letter of the law, unaffected by political or social influences. Because following the rule of law absolutely is impossible, it is dismissed by the public as a myth and judges are vilified. Judging Judges refocuses and elevates the debate over judges and the rule of law by showing that personal and professional values matter. Jason E. Whitehead demonstrates that the rule of law depends on a socially constructed attitude of legal obligation that spawns objective rules. Intensive interviews of judges reveal the value systems that uphold or undermine the attitude of legal obligation so central to the rule of law. This focus on the social practices undergirding these value systems demonstrates that the rule of law is ultimately a matter of social trust rather than textual constraints. Whitehead's unique combination of philosophical and empirical investigation is a major advance because it moves beyond the dichotomy of law or politics and shows that the rule of law is a shared social enterprise involving all of societyâjudges, politicians, scholars, and ordinary citizens alike. Judging Judges ' attention to judicial values establishes judges' true worth in a liberal democracy.Trade Review"Whiteheads Judging Judges brings together those testy siblings, law and politics, in an insightful treatment of the core issues in law. It is passionate and careful, learned and savvy, and often very clever. Judging Judges is an accessible treatment of legal thinking that puts real people in the jurisprudential equation along with judges and lawyers." -- John Brigham, Professor, Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst"Whitehead uses extensive interviews with appellate judges to delineate the ways that judges think about their task of interpreting the law. In doing so, he provides us with new insights and valuable evidence about the role of legal considerations in judicial decision-making." -- Lawrence Baum, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Ohio State University"Jason Whitehead offers a nuanced analysis of the constraints that are imposed by the judicial role and the relatively limited range of choices that are open to judges when they interpret the law. This book is a tour de force and a model of scholarship. It can be read profitably by judges, legal theorists, and political scientists, indeed by anyone who is intrigued by the complexity hidden in the seemingly simple question, 'What does it mean to apply rules?'" -- Malcolm M Feeley, Claire Sanders Clements Dean's Professor, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at BerkeleyThis is a must read book for those interested in the normative dimensions of the rule of law as well as those who wish to move beyond the stale debates between 'attitudinalists' and 'legalists' in the study of judicial behavior. -- Cornell W. Clayton -- Law & Society ReviewA well-honed exploration of a thorny and complex issue marked by rigor in analysis. -- Justice Gilles Renaud -- Canadian Law Library ReviewWhitehead seeks to better define how judges sustain the rule of law, and to counter the suspicion that the only distinction between good and bad judging is the preference for a particular outcome...His discussion of judicial values would be a good supplement in undergraduate courses on judicial process, constitutional law, or legal reasoning. -- Keith J. Bybee -- Law and Politics Book ReviewHighly interesting work -- ChoiceTable of ContentsIntroduction: The Battle Over Judges and the Rule of Law 1. Values and the Rule of Law from the Inside Out 2. Judges and Formalist Values 3. Judges and Good-Faith Values 4. Judges and Cynical Values 5. Judges and Rogue Values Conclusion: Changing How We Judge the Judges

Read more less

Book SynopsisTable of Contents Introduction to October Term 2020 LI> Antitrust and college sports Bankruptcy law Civil rights litigation Criminal law and procedure Federal court jurisdiction First Amendment: Free Exercise of Religion First Amendment: Freedom of Speech Immigration law Indian Law Intellectual property Personal jurisdiction Separation of powers The Takings Clause Voting rights Conclusion: Looking ahead

Read more less

Book SynopsisThis review of the Supreme Court's October 2021 Term looks back at the major cases addressed by the Court and provides a valuable focus on the implications of these decisions. Written by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, the book takes a neutral tone, neither praising nor criticizing the decisions, and organizes the case essays by topic.Table of ContentsTable of Contents:Preface Introduction to October Term 2021 Abortion Administrative Law Civil Rights Litigation Criminal Law and Procedure Election Law Federal Court Jurisdiction First Amendment: Freedom of Speech First Amendment: Religion Immigration Law Indian Law Second Amendment State Secrets Conclusion: Looking Ahead Index

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book SynopsisIn this book, Peter J. Wallison argues that the administrative agencies of the executive branch have gradually taken over the legislative role of Congress, resulting in what many call the administrative state. The judiciary bears the major responsibility for this development because it has failed to carry out its primary constitutional responsibility: to enforce the constitutional separation of powers by ensuring that the elected branches of government—the legislative and the executive—remain independent and separate from one another. Since 1937, and especially with the Chevron deference adopted by the Supreme Court in 1984, the judiciary has abandoned this role. It has allowed Congress to delegate lawmaking authorities to the administrative agencies of the executive branch and given these agencies great latitude in interpreting their statutory authorities. Unelected officials of the administrative state have thus been enabled to make decisions for the American people that, in a democracy, should only be made by Congress. The consequences have been grave: unnecessary regulation has imposed major costs on the U.S. economy, the constitutional separation of powers has been compromised, and unabated agency rulemaking has created a significant threat that Americans will one day question the legitimacy of their own government. To address these concerns, Wallison argues that the courts must return to the role the Framers expected them to fulfill.

Read more less

Book SynopsisRyan J. Rebe, J.D., Ph.D., is chair and full professor of political science and director of legal studies at William Paterson University of New Jersey.

Read more less

Book SynopsisIn No Place for Ethics, Hill argues that contemporary judicial review by the Supreme Court rests on its mistaken positivist understanding of law—law simply because so ordered—as something separate from ethics. To assert any relation between the two is to contaminate both, either by turning law into an arm of ethics, or making ethics an expression of law.To address this mistake, Hill contends that an understanding of natural law theory provides the basis for a constitutive relation between ethics and law without confusing their distinct role in answering the basic question, how should I behave in society? To secure that relation, the Court has an overriding responsibility when carrying out its review to do so with reference to normative ethics from which the US Constitution is derived and to which it is accountable. While the Constitution confirms, for example, the liberty interests of individuals, it does not originate those interests which have their origin in human rights that long preceded it. Essential to this argument is an appreciation of ethics as objective and normatively based on principles, like that of justice and truth that ought to inform human behavior at its very springs. Applied in an analysis of five major Supreme Court cases, this appreciation of ethics reveals how wrongly decided these cases are.Trade ReviewIs the American constitution a “dead” document—an end in itself—as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia maintained, or should it, through a grounding in ethics, be seen as a means of upholding the rights of the people? Through an acute analytic framework and close analysis of five SCOTUS cases, Patrick Hill demonstrates how a sterile formalism has frustrated justice and distorted the law’s true purposes. This is a timely book. -- Harry Keyishian, Professor Emeritus of English, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and former Director, Fairleigh Dickinson University PressProfessor Hill provides a compelling anodyne for the ideological “isms” that animate the current decisions of our nation's highest tribunal. All called to the bench and bar will be inspirited by the author's singular passion for justice. -- Hon. Hon. Paul W. Armstrong, Rutgers UniversityTable of ContentsIntroduction: Ethics and Law, A Complicated but Necessary RelationshipOneLochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905): Public Health and. the Constitutionally Protected Right of Contract between an Employer and EmployeesTwoDeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989): Liberty and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentThreeNew York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992): Wither the Social Contract?FourFDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 529 U.S 98 (2000): FDA Uses the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) of 1938 to Claim Regulatory Authority Over Tobacco ProductsFiveUnited States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000): Legal Formalism versus Human Rights, Federal Civil Remedies and the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence

Read more less

Book Synopsis'The role of the European judiciary in the process of European integration cannot be overestimated. The achievements of European integration after the second world war are usually analyzed from the perspective of political decisions that were made, initially, by the Founding Fathers and, subsequently, by the political leaders of the European countries. However, in the public debate we very often forget how much we owe to the two supreme jurisdictions of Europe, that is the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The continuing extension of the competences of the European Union, especially in the field of economic and monetary policy, calls for a new assessment of the nature of the decision-making process at the European level.'-- From the foreword by Prof. Maciej Szpunar, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union'The European judiciary i.e. the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and national courts interpreting and applying European law sensu largo have shaped [the process of European integration] actively, alongside the Founding Fathers, European nations, European states and their citizens. The involvement of the judiciary raises its own wide range of questions concerning the very nature of democracy. Much ink has already been spilled over issues such as democratic legitimacy, subsidiarity and accountability, the rule of law or judicial activism.[...] seventeen scholars from across Europe [...] share their views on the European judiciary as a challenge for democracy. The various contributions to the present volume are split into two parts. The first provides ten chapters on the judicial systems of the European Union (EU), discussing, inter alia, recognition of democratic principles in the case law of the CJEU, contribution thereof to the democratisation of the Union and reception of EU law in the Member States. The second part discusses the judicial means to protect human rights in Europe, consisting of three chapters devoted to the promise of advisory opinions of the ECtHR as well as to democratic standards for voting and for fair trial.'-- From the preface by the Editors'[...] the editors, authors and the publisher of this volume decided to take a closer look at the relation between democracy and activities of something that might be called ''European judicial systems''. And what is intriguing these systems are perceived here as a challenge for democracy.[...] This book does not exhaust all problems and issues for European judicial systems confronted with the very notion of democracy; there are simply too many of them. But it comes with a fresh look on perhaps the most pertinent ones, like the issue of the legal creativity of judges in both Luxembourg and Strasbourg. It was worth waiting for this volume.'-- Prof. Dr. Paul De Hert, Free University Brussels and Tilburg UniversityTable of ContentsForeword by Prof. Maciej Szpunar Preface List of Abbreviations PART ONE. THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION1. Democracy in Constitutional Politics of European Courts: An Overview of Selected IssuesBogusia Puchalska 1. Introduction 2. The ECJ and national courts: power struggle or cooperation? 2.1. European Court of Justice: its own master? 2.2. The main tenets of ECJ's constitutional politics 2.3. The enduring attraction of the concept of sovereignty in relationsbetween the ECJ and NCs 2.4. Beyond 'sovereignty': power struggle, or power-posturing? 3. The supremacy of EU economic policy 3.1. What is the model of economic policy entrenched in the Treaties? 3.2. The ECJ and the EU's 'democratic deficit' 3.3. Entrenchment of the EU economic policy, TTIP, and the role of the courts 3.3.1. Democratic deficit of economic policy and the courts a. Investor-state dispute settlement 4. Conclusions Bibliography 2. The Institutional Balance as CJEU's Contribution to Democracy in the Union: Selected IssuesTomasz Dubowski 1. Introduction 2. The CJEU and the traces of institutional balance in the Treaties 3. Institutional balance as a general principle of EU (EC) law? The Court's role 4. Institutional balance and democracy in the EU - visible links 5. Conclusion Bibliography 3. From Judicial Dialogue Towards Constitutional Spill-Over? The Economic Analysis of Preliminary Reference Procedure and the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental RightsMariusz J. Golecki 1. Introduction 2. Constitutional courts and the preliminary reference procedure: judicial dialogue and judicial spill-over 3. Towards an economic analysis of breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the national constitutional court 4. Tentative conclusion Bibliography 4. Towards the Democratization of the EU? Strengthening prerogatives of the European Parliament in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European UnionAgnieszka Piekutowska 1. Introduction 2. The defence of the prerogatives of the European Parliament before the CJEU. Pre-Lisbon case-law . 3. Post-Lisbon judgments of the CJEU on the EP's prerogatives 4. Conclusion Bibliography 5. Democratic Values in the Court of Justice Adjudication on the Private Enforcement of the European Union Competition LawFranciszek Strzyczkowski 1. Introduction 2. The influence of the American experience on private enforcement of the European antitrust law 3. The importance of the reform of the EU competition law enforcement 3.1. Towards fostering private damages actions - proposals of the European Commission 4. The position of the European Courts 5. Locus standi to claim damages under European Union competition law 6. Concluding remarks Bibliography 6. Judicial Control of Monetary and Fiscal Decisions in theEuropean UnionFilip Krepelka 1. Introduction 2. Traditional and emerging roles of judiciary 3. Rules and institutions for monetary and fiscal policy 4. A single currency for the integration in the European Union 5. Original legal framework for the euro 6. Onset of the debt crisis and its causes 7. Alleviation of the crisis and prevention of its escalation8. Political consequences of the crisis 9. Legal aspects of remedies and reinterpretation of rules 10. Judicial involvement in the crisis 11. Conclusions Bibliography 7. How CJEU's "Privacy Spring" Construed the Human Rights Shield in the Digital AgeGabriela Zanfir 1. Introduction 2. The relationship between individuals and the state in the digital world: Digital Rights Ireland 2.1. Preliminary observation: there is a wide societal interest in protecting human rights against the bulk collection and retention of metadata 2.2. Bulk retention of metadata touches on the freedom of expression, not only on privacy 2.3. Clarification on the differences in content between Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter 2.4. Requirements for data retention legislation to comply with fundamental rights 3. The relationship between individuals and private bodies in the digitalworld: Google v. Spain 3.1. Internet search engines are data controllers and their activity involves processing of personal data 3.2. "Global" territorial scope of Directive 95/46/EC3.3. The right to erasure applies when the processing does not comply with the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC 3.4. Criteria for the balance of rights 4. Conclusion Bibliography 8. The Supremacy of the EU Law as Interpreted by the Polish Constitutional TribunalElzbieta Kuzelewska and Dariusz Kuzelewski 1. Introduction 2. Specificity of the constitutional review in Poland 3. The primacy of the EU law over national law 4. The principle of supremacy in the light of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal's judicature 5. Conclusions Bibliography 9. Reception of EU Law in Polish Courts - A Case of "Teddy Bear" LawIzabela Krasnicka 1. Introduction 2. The principle of supremacy, the principle of direct effect and the principle of indirect effect of EU law 3. "Working time" under the Polish law and EU law 4. Czeslaw Mis' arguments in the light of the ECJ case law 5. Arguments of the Polish courts 6. The final decision and its consequences 7. Closing remarks Bibliography 10. Enforcing Europe's Foundational Values in Central and Eastern Europe: A Case in PointTine Carmeliet and Georgia Christina Kosmidou1. Introduction 2. Shortcomings of the EU's institutional framework 2.1. Article 7 TEU 2.1.1. Procedural obstacles 2.1.2. Substantive obstacles 2.1.3. Conclusion 2.2. Legal creativity to protect the European foundational values 2.2.1. Infringement actions by the European Commission 2.2.2. Social pressure and issue linkage 3. Policy recommendations 3.1. In search for a definition of liberal democracy 3.2. A stronger role for the CJEU 4. Concluding observations Bibliography PART TWO. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS11. Protocol 16 to the ECHR: A Convenient Tool for Judicial Dialogue and Better Domestic Implementation of the Convention?Wladyslaw Jozwicki 1. Introduction 2. Protocol 16 - background 3. The new advisory opinion mechanism - basic characteristics3. Protocol 16 and the chances it opens 3.1. A step towards enhancing domestic implementation of the ECHR 3.2. A step towards more harmonious and up-to-date interpretation of the Convention 4. Protocol 16 and its drawbacks 4.1. ECtHR - victim of its success revisited? 4.2. The optional and nonbinding character of the AOs and some practical concerns 4.3. Protocol 16 and the EU 5. Conclusion Bibliography 12. The EU's Parliamentary Representation in the Light of the StrasbourgCourt's Sejdic and Zornic Standards: Is there Tendency for a New Parliamentary Order in the EU?Fisnik Korenica and Dren Doli 1. Introduction 2. EU's constitutional architecture with regard to parliamentary representation 3. A note on the concept of parliamentary representation in the light of Sejdic and Zornic: European Parliament of the EU people or European Parliament of the EU Member States peoples 4. Thresholds on EU Parliament and 'regressive proportionality' model of electoral system: is there an objective system of electoral criteria? 5. Concluding remarks and a general forthcoming outlook Bibliography 13. The European Concept of a Fair Trial and the Legal Admissibility of Assessors in the Polish Judicial SystemKarol Pachnik and Jakub Krajewski 1. Introduction 2. The position of an assessor in Polish common courts 3. Standards of a fair trial 4. Amending the organisation of courts 5. Regulations on assessors in Polish administrative courts - possible solutions 6. Conclusion Bibliography

Read more less

Book SynopsisThis book provides unique insights into modern collective judicial decision-making. Courts all over the world sit in panels of several judges, yet the processes by which these judges produce the court's decision differ markedly. Judges from some of the world's most notable judicial bodies, in both the civilian and the common law tradition and from supra-/international courts, share their experiences and reflect on the challenges to which their collective endeavour gives rise. They address matters such as the question of panel constitution, the operation of rapporteur systems, pre-and post-hearing conferences, the hearing procedure itself, the nature of the interaction between the judicial panel and parties' advocates, the extent to which a unitary judgment of the court or at least a single majority judgment is required or deemed desirable, and how it is ultimately arrived at through different voting mechanisms. They allow the reader a unique inside view into the functioning of modern judicial bodies. The judges' chapters are supplemented by a series of comparative analyses and reflections on the lessons to be learnt from them. Collective Judging in Comparative Perspective thus also provides an ideal starting point for thinking about future court design.Table of ContentsPart I. Designing Collegiate Courts' Decision-Making Processes Chapter 1. The Fine-Mechanics of Judicial Majoritarianism (p. 1) Part II. Collegiate Courts in the Common Law Tradition Chapter 2. Collective Judging in the UK Supreme Court (p. 19) Chapter 3. Collective Judging in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (p. 37) Chapter 4. An Australian Perspective on Collective Judging (p. 47) Chapter 5. Collegial Decision-Making in the US Courts of Appeals (p. 57) Part III. Collegiate Courts in the European Civil Law Tradition Chapter 6. Collective Judging in the French Court de Cassation (p. 127) Chapter 7. Collective Judging in Germany (p. 141) Chapter 8. Why is the German Federal Constitutional Court a Deliberative Court, and Why is That a Good Thing? A Comparative Assessment (p. 157) Chapter 9. Collective Judging at the Swiss Supreme Court (p. 181) Chapter 10. Decision-Making in Appellate Courts: An Austrian Experience (p. 195) Part IV. Collegiate Courts in a Non-European Civil Law Jurisdiction: The Case of Japan Chapter 11: Collective Judging by Collegiate Courts in Japan (p. 205) Part V. Supranational and International Collegiate Courts Chapter 12: The Fine-Mechanics of Judicial Decision-Making at the European Court of Human Rights (p. 225) Chapter 13: Collective Judging in the Court of Justice of the European Union (p. 253) Chapter 14: The Anatomy of the Deliberation Process at International Criminal Tribunals (p. 267) Chapter 15: Collective Judging in the Catholic Church (p. 283) Part VI. Voices from the Audience and Closing Remarks Chapter 16: Decision-Making by the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (p. 291) Chapter 17: Collegiality and Collectivity in Common Law Courts (p. 303) Chapter 18: Should Judges Tell Us What They Think? (p. 323) Chapter 19: Beyond Anecdote and Synecdoche (p. 327) Chapter 20: Concluding Remarks (p. 339)

Read more less

Book Synopsis As in a number of France’s major cities, civil war erupted in Lyon in the summer of 1793, ultimately leading to a siege of the city and a wave of mass executions. Using Lyon as a lens for understanding the politics of revolutionary France, this book reveals the widespread enthusiasm for judicial change in Lyon at the time of the Revolution, as well as the conflicts that ensued between elected magistrates in the face of radical democratization. Julie Patricia Johnson’s investigation of these developments during the bloodiest years of the Revolution offers powerful insights into the passions and the struggles of ordinary people during an extraordinary time.Trade Review “Johnson has provided a useful additional perspective on Revolutionary Lyon.” • English Historical Review “One of the most tragic episodes of the French Revolution was the violent civil war in the city of Lyon in 1793 and the sweeping repression subsequently imposed by Jacobin revolutionaries. The loss of life scarred the city for generations. By focusing on a key rebel, the judge Jean-Jacques Ampère, Julie Johnson captures expertly how rival conceptions of politics and justice increasingly and fatally divided radical and moderate revolutionaries.” • Peter McPhee, University of Melbourne “Johnson deftly navigates the relevant secondary literature on the Revolution in Lyon, commenting judiciously on past controversies, weighing in where appropriate, and pointing to deficiencies or lacunae in what has been written in the past. Her research is sound, the writing is clear and engaging, and the book makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of the French Revolution.” • Paul R. Hanson, Butler University “The Candle and the Guillotine is an absorbing study of the political dynamics between rival radical groups in Lyon during the Revolution. It is particularly effective at creating a vivid sense of the experience of revolution and the powerful emotions it engendered.” • Marisa Linton, Kingston UniversityTable of Contents List of Illustrations Acknowledgements Introduction Part I: Inspirations Chapter 1. The Most Polished Town Chapter 2. Life in the Country Chapter 3. Crises and Revolution Chapter 4. The Candle Flares Part II: Aspirations Chapter 5. Patriots and Traitors Chapter 6. ‘A Lively Political Milieu’ in Lyon Chapter 7. New Judges Chapter 8. The First Republic Part III: Retributions Chapter 9. Trials and Emotions Chapter 10. Prison Wars Chapter 11. Ousting of the Jacobins Chapter 12. Bastille Day, 1793 Chapter 13. Terror in Lyon Conclusion Glossary of Terms Glossary of Names Bibliography Index

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book SynopsisIn 100 per cent of criminal trials someone, if not everyone, tells lies. If it wasn't for liars, there wouldn't be trials. When a defendant swears 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth', most judges and barristers believe their evidence will be 'nothing like the truth'. Who can blame them? During years of exposure to a daily diet of murder and mayhem, lies and liars, they've heard it all before. In Nothing Like the Truth, Nigel Lithman QC provides an entertaining and irreverent insight into life in the criminal courts as barrister, QC and Crown Court judge. Using his experience in true crime, he mixes tales of horror with humour and questions whether it is possible for defendants to get a fair trial.

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book SynopsisDie Autorin befasst sich mit den verfassungsrechtlichen Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des 2014 reformierten Art. 91b GG im Kontext der bundesstaatlichen Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsfinanzierung. Dabei untersucht sie Gesetzgebungs-, Verwaltungs- und Finanzierungskompetenzen von Bund und Ländern im Wissenschaftsbereich und greift die seit langem bestehende Kritik an der bundesstaatlichen Aufgaben- und Finanzverflechtung auf. Anhand der gewonnenen Erkenntnisse unterzieht sie die Praxis der kooperativen Wissenschaftsförderung ferner einer verfassungsrechtlichen Analyse. Ausgehend von ihrem Verdikt einer in weiten Teilen verfassungswidrigen Wissenschaftsförderung weist sie auf weiteren Reformbedarf hin und zeigt Reformperspektiven der bundesstaatlichen Wissenschaftsfinanzierung auf.

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less

Book Synopsis

Read more less