The Experts below are selected from a list of 55152 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Pablo Rafael Banchio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • compliance en el derecho comparado segunda parte bases culturales regulacion en el sistema del Common Law compliance in comparative Law cultural bases regulation in Common Law System
    Social Science Research Network, 2020
    Co-Authors: Pablo Rafael Banchio
    Abstract:

    Spanish Abstract: Este trabajo es la continuacion del estudio del Compliance en el Derecho Comparado desde la Alonomologia. En el se desarrollan las bases culturales en la que se desenvuelven los sistemas juridicos occidentales y sus desafios frente al derecho universal planetario que postula la globalizacion. Desde esa perspectiva se efectua un analisis del sistema del Common Law, donde surgio el instituto objeto de este estudio, desde sus origenes hasta sus desarrollos mas actuales en Estados Unidos y la ley antisoborno del Reino Unido, para favorecer la reflexion critica de sus postulados en vistas a asegurar el cumplimiento de los valores perseguidos por del instituto del Compliance en su implementacion en la Republica Argentina. English Abstract: This paper is the continuation of the study of Compliance in Comparative Law from the perspective of Alonomology. It develops the cultural bases in which Occidental legal Systems are developed and their challenges in front of the universal planetary Law that globalization postulates. From this perspective, an analysis of the Common Law System is carried out, where the institute object of this study emerged, from its origins to its most recent developments in the United States and the anti-bribery act of the United Kingdom, in order to favour the critical reflection of its postulates with a view to ensuring the fulfilment of the values pursued by the institute of Compliance in its implementation in the Argentine Republic.

Michael Ramsden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • english administrative Law in post handover hong kong in swati jhaveri and michael ramsden eds judicial review of administrative action across the Common Law world origins and adaptations cambridge university press 2020
    Social Science Research Network, 2020
    Co-Authors: Michael Ramsden
    Abstract:

    After 156 years of British rule Hong Kong was returned to the People’s Republic of China on 1 July 1997 under a unique constitutional settlement of ‘One Country, Two Systems’. Under this model, the essential features of governance under colonial rule would be retained with modifications to suit the new realities. An important feature that was retained in the Hong Kong constitution, the ‘Basic Law’, was the Common Law System and, with it, the power of individuals to challenge decisions of the legislature and executive by way of judicial review. Since the handover, judicial review has not only continued but grown in prominence, it now playing an even greater role in the regulation of public administration, with Hong Kong residents also seeing the benefit in using the courts as a means to participate in public affairs given the continued absence of meaningful democracy and representative government. The purpose of this chapter is to explore one particular facet of judicial review in Hong Kong: the continued influence of English Law on its development. It does so from two vantage points. First, it considers the influence that the British colonial form of governance and recognition of human rights has had in the crafting of post-handover constitutional guarantees. Second, the chapter then proceeds to consider the continuing influence of English precedent on judicial review in Hong Kong, both in relation to the principles of administrative Law and the content of fundamental rights.

Sunduzwayo Madise - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • quick guide to legal referencing and etiquette maLawi and the Common Law System
    Social Science Research Network, 2014
    Co-Authors: Sunduzwayo Madise
    Abstract:

    This is a quick guide to legal referencing. It primarily focuses on the Common Law legal tradition as used in England and MaLawi and other Commonwealth countries. It may be of is primary use to the legal scholar as well as anyone in interested in the MaLawi legal System. It also provides a useful guide on how to reference legal material. It also provides a useful; guide to the information that maybe contained in a reference such as a case or a journal. It also provides useful tips on the addresses of judicial officers and other important legal personalities. The guide also provides useful information about the structure of the judiciary and other legal institutions in MaLawi

David A Strauss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Common Law genius of the warren court
    William and Mary law review, 2007
    Co-Authors: David A Strauss
    Abstract:

    Abstract The Warren Court's most important decisions--on school segregation, reapportionment, free speech, and criminal procedure--are firmly entrenched in the Law. But the idea persists, even among those who are sympathetic to the results that the Warren Court reached, that what the Warren Court was doing was somehow not really Law: that the Warren Court "made it up," and that the important Warren Court decisions cannot be justified by reference to conventional legal materials. It is true that the Warren Court's most important decisions cannot be easily justified on the basis of the text of the Constitution or the original understandings. But in its major constitutional decisions, the Warren Court was, in a deep sense, a Common Law court. The decisions in Brown v. Board of Education, (1) Gideon v. Wainwright, (2) Miranda v. Arizona, (3) and even in the reapportionment cases all can be justified as Common Law decisions. The Warren Court's decisions in these areas resemble the paradigm examples of innovation in the Common Law, such as Cardozo's decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (4) In all of those areas, the Warren Court, although it was innovating, did so in a way that was justified by lessons drawn from precedents. And the Warren Court's decisions were consistent with the presuppositions of a Common Law System: that judges should build on previous decisions rather than claiming superior insight, and that innovation should be justified on the basis of what has gone before. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE Common Law APPROACH A. Common Law Innovation in Action: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co B. The Premises of the Common Law II. THE WARREN COURT A. Brown v. Board of Education 1. What Justifies Brown? 2. Brown and the Common Law Approach B. Gideon v. Wainwright C. Miranda v. Arizona D. The Reapportionment Cases CONCLUSION It is hard to overstate the significance of the Warren Court to American legal culture. The Warren Court's decisions--most notably, but not exclusively, Brown v. Board of Education, (5) which declared public school segregation unconstitutional--changed the way people thought about courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular. In the first half of the twentieth century, courts were, if anything, perceived as hostile to efforts to bring about equality and social justice; (6) after the Warren Court, the courts came to be seen by many as the natural place for people to turn to achieve these objectives. (7) The influence of the Warren Court has, moreover, spread beyond the United States. The image of courts as the institution with a special responsibility for the disadvantaged has taken root elsewhere in the world, and the paradigm is the Warren Court. (8) Despite this record of success, though, the notion still lingers that the Warren Court was essentially Lawless. Morally visionary, yes, at least on racial segregation; (9) politically astute, perhaps, in sensing the direction in which the nation was moving at the time; (10) but utterly deficient as a matter of legal craft. This view is held across the spectrum, even by people who are broadly in agreement with the Warren Court's objectives. Mainstream legal scholars during the Warren Court years--including many who were politically inclined to approve of the outcomes of the Warren Court decisions--relentlessly attacked the Warren Court in these terms. Alexander Bickel, probably the most widely respected constitutional scholar of his time, accused "the Supreme Court headed ... by Earl Warren" of having engaged in an "assault upon the legal order." (11) Philip Kurland's Foreword to the Supreme Court issue of the Harvard Law Review in 1964 was overtly contemptuous of the Justices' performance as Lawyers; (12) Kurland later derided Brown v. Board of Education as "the self-licensing of the Court to recreate the equal protection clause in its own image . …

  • the Common Law genius of the warren court
    Social Science Research Network, 2002
    Co-Authors: David A Strauss
    Abstract:

    The Warren Court's most important decisions -- on school segregation, reapportionment, free speech, and criminal procedure -- are firmly entrenched in the Law. But the idea persists, even among those who were sympathetic to the results that Warren Court reached, that what the Warren Court was doing was somehow not really Law: that the Warren Court "made it up," and that the important Warren Court decisions cannot be justified by reference to conventional legal materials. It is true that the Warren Court's most important decisions cannot be easily justified on the basis of the text of the Constitution or the original understandings. But in its major constitutional decisions, the Warren Court was, in a deep sense, a Common Law court. The decisions in Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and even the reapportionment cases, all can be justified as Common Law decisions. The Warren Court's decisions in these areas resemble the paradigm examples of innovation in the Common Law, such as Cardozo's decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. In all of those areas, the Warren Court, although it was innovating, did so in a way that was justified by lessons drawn from precedents. And the Warren Court's decisions were consistent with the presuppositions of a Common Law System -- that judges should build on previous decisions rather than claiming superior insight, and that innovation should be justified on the basis of what has gone before.

Johannes M M Chan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a storm of unprecedented ferocity the shrinking space of the right to political participation peaceful demonstration and judicial independence in hong kong
    International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2018
    Co-Authors: Johannes M M Chan
    Abstract:

    As Hong Kong celebrated its twentieth anniversary of becoming a Special Administrative Region of China under the One Country, Two Systems model, the tension between the socialist/civil Law System and the Common Law System on the two sides of the border has become increasingly strenuous. The tension is most obvious in relation to the independence of the judiciary, and is aggravated by the rising economic power of China and the emergence of the so-called “localism” in Hong Kong. This article argues that the latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in the context of disqualifying a number of popularly elected legislators constitutes the most blatant interference with judicial independence in Hong Kong to date. At the same time, the judiciary in Hong Kong is facing mounting challenges from demonstrators who have tried to test the boundary of public demonstrations in the pretext of civil disobedience. The Court has done well so far in defending the rule of Law, but it has to secure its own institutional space within a shrinking public space, and is treading an ever-slippery path of maintaining the liberal values of the Common Law System amidst a rising and powerful authoritarian regime.

  • A Storm of Unprecedented Ferocity: Shrinking Space for Political Rights, Public Demonstrations and Judicial Independence in Hong Kong
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
    Co-Authors: Johannes M M Chan
    Abstract:

    As Hong Kong celebrated its twentieth anniversary of becoming a Special Administrative Region of China under the One Country, Two Systems model, the tension between the socialist/civil Law System and the Common Law System on two sides of the border has become increasingly strenuous. The tension is most obvious in relation to the independence of the judiciary, and is aggravated by the rising economic power of China and the emergence of the so-called “localism” in Hong Kong. This article argues that the latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in the context of disqualifying a number of popularly elected legislators constituted the most blatant interference with judicial independence in Hong Kong. At the same time, the judiciary in Hong Kong is facing mounting challenges from demonstrators who tried to test the boundary of public demonstrations in the pretext of civil disobedience. The court has done well so far in defending the rule of Law, but it has to secure its own institutional space within a shrinking public space, and is treading an ever-slippery path of maintaining the liberal values of the Common Law System amidst a rising and powerful authoritarian regime.