The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Liao Zhong-hong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Remedial Mechanism in Small Claim Action: On the One-tiered Trial System for Small Claim Action in the Newly Revised Civil Procedural Law
    Modern Law Science, 2012
    Co-Authors: Liao Zhong-hong
    Abstract:

    The one-tiered trial system was established by the Civil Procedural Law which was revised on August 31,2012.A comparison of the legislations about small claim actions in other countries show that whether this new system is scientific and reasonable is worth studying.In terms of procedural law related to small claim actions,owing to different demands of remedy and out of a varied remedial thoughts and legislative aims,a variety of remedial models can be found all over the world such as motion,special appeal,Dissenting Opinion,etc.,some of which vary a great deal in respect of their of mechanism.In consideration of time consuming,litigant friendly and litigation formality reduction,China should in her law provide for remedial ways such as Dissenting Opinion while setting up remedial mechanism for small claim action.

Herlita Eryke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • STUDI TENTANG Dissenting Opinion DALAM PROSES PENGAMBILAN PUTUSAN TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA DI PENGADILAN NEGERI BENGKULU
    2020
    Co-Authors: Syaikha Virzha, Lidia, Br. Karo, Herlita Eryke
    Abstract:

    Penyalahgunaan narkotika di Indonesia sudah sampai ketingkat yang mengkhawatirkan, fakta dilapangan menunjukan 50% penghuni LAPAS disebabkan oleh kasus narkoba. Beberapa kasus penyalahgunaan narkotika satu sisi hakim berpendapat bahwa penyalah guna narkotika adalah korban disisi lain penyalah guna dianggap sebagai pelaku. Hal tersebut dapat menimbulkan opini yang berbeda-beda antar majelis hakim dalam memutus suatu perkara. Hadirnya perbedaan pendapat sangat dimungkinkan terjadi karena konsekuensi dari prinsip kebebasan hakim, prinsip tersebut merupakan hal mutlak yang dimiliki hakim sebagai mana manat undang-undang. Maka diperlukan suatu penelitian untuk menetahui penyebab Dissenting Opinion dalam pengambilan putusan dan bagaimana pengaruhnya. Adapun tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apa saja penyebab terjadinya Dissenting Opinion dalam proses pengambilan putusan tindak pidana penyalahgunaan narkotika di Pengadilan Negeri Bengkulu dan untuk mengetahui pengaruh Dissenting Opinion terhadap putusan yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim di Pengadilan Negeri Bengkulu dalam perkara tindak pidana penyalahgunaan narkotika. Metode penelitian ini digunakan metode penelitian hukum empiris dilakukan system wawancara terstruktur kepada hakim Pengadilan Negeri Bengkulu. Hasil penelitian meunjukan bahwa penyebab terjadinya Dissenting Opinion dalam proses pengambilan putusan adalah sudut pandang hakim yang berbeda dalam melihat dan menilai kasus yang sedan diadili, tidak tercapai kata mufakat antar majelis hakim, dan ketidaksepahaman hakim dalam menerapkan hukum. Mengenai pengaruh Dissenting Opinion, putusan hakim yang Dissenting Opinion tidak memberikan pengaruh terhadap hakim lainnya dalm menjatuhkan putusan tetapi putusan Dissenting Opinion dapat dijadikan yurisprudensi bagi kasus-kasus serupa

Shuvra Dey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Dissenting Opinion of justice radhabinod pal on the notion of aggressive war
    Journal of East Asia and international law, 2015
    Co-Authors: Shuvra Dey
    Abstract:

    Tokyo trial experienced a judgment circumscribed for a long period for publication during allied occupation years. This is Justice Pal’s Dissenting judgment at the Tokyo trial; endeavored to seek Justice in a different way, justified ‘aggression’ not only considering subjective ends, rather extends beyond that. The present paper does not intend to justify the judgment which exceeds author’s competence, but also tries to extract the notion of aggression where Justice Radhabinod Pal is experimental. Where all acts are not act of aggression, the main concern is to segregate the concept of act of war and the act of aggression. Assertion becomes crucial when certain use of force can be legitimized under sovereign right of self-defense. This paper tends to clarify these ambiguities concerning the notion of aggression relying on Justice Pal’s Opinion. Firstly, a progressive attempt has been made to identify the extent of use of force under sovereign right of self-defense, overriding that extent may tantamount to aggression. Then possible means have been drawn to limit the concept of aggression. Finally, the paper would shed brief light on the comparison of Justice Pal’s Dissenting Opinion with contemporaneous legal framework predominantly concerning the notion of aggression.

  • Dissenting Opinion of Justice Radhabinod Pal on the Notion of Aggressive War: A Critical Evaluation
    2015
    Co-Authors: Shuvra Dey
    Abstract:

    Tokyo trial experienced a judgment circumscribed for a long period for publication during allied occupation years. This is Justice Pal’s Dissenting judgment at the Tokyo trial; endeavored to seek Justice in a different way, justified ‘aggression’ not only considering subjective ends, rather extends beyond that. The present paper does not intend to justify the judgment which exceeds author’s competence, but tries to extract the notion of aggression where Justice Radhabinod Pal is experimental. Where all acts are not act of aggression, the main concern is to segregate the concept of act of war and the act of aggression. Assertion becomes crucial when certain use of force can be legitimized under sovereign right of self-defense. This paper tends to clarify these ambiguities concerning the notion of aggression relying on Justice Pal’s Opinion. Firstly, a progressive attempt has been made to identify the extent of use of force under sovereign right of self-defense, overriding that extent may tantamount to aggression. Then possible means have been drawn to limit the concept of aggression. Finally, the paper would shed brief light on the comparison of Justice Pal’s Dissenting Opinion with contemporaneous legal framework predominantly concerning the notion of aggression.

André Douglas Pond Cummings - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action and the Treachery of Originalism: "The Sun Don't Shine Here in this Part of Town"
    2006
    Co-Authors: André Douglas Pond Cummings
    Abstract:

    Careful examination of Justice Clarence Thomas's Dissenting Opinion in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger is important for a number of reasons: First, as one of the youngest members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas stands a reasonable chance of still being a member of the court in 25 years, the self imposed implosion date (sunset provision) established by Justice O'Connor's majority Opinion. No doubt, Thomas relishes the idea of writing the majority Opinion that kills affirmative action and racial preferences for good. Second, much as Justice Harlan's Dissenting Opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was used as a guide for the majority Opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, Thomas's Dissenting Opinion in Grutter may eventually be looked to when the majority Opinion is written that ends affirmative action programs once and for all. Third, in Grutter, Thomas was presented with yet another opportunity to return to the compassion he championed during his Senate confirmation hearings. Thomas refused this opportunity. Finally, evaluating Thomas's Grutter dissent will serve to cement his race jurisprudence, as Grutter likely represents one of the most important race case that will come before the Supreme Court during Thomas's tenure. The attached article carefully reviews Thomas's dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger and examines the originalist rationale that he seemingly abandons in writing his saucy and sarcastic dissent.

Cummings, André Douglas Pond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action and the Treachery of Originalism: The Sun Don\u27t Shine Here in this Part of Town
    Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives, 2006
    Co-Authors: Cummings, André Douglas Pond
    Abstract:

    Careful examination of Justice Clarence Thomas\u27s Dissenting Opinion in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger is important for a number of reasons: First, as one of the youngest members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas stands a reasonable chance of still being a member of the court in 25 years, the self imposed implosion date (sunset provision) established by Justice O\u27Connor\u27s majority Opinion. No doubt, Thomas relishes the idea of writing the majority Opinion that kills affirmative action and racial preferences for good. Second, much as Justice Harlan\u27s Dissenting Opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was used as a guide for the majority Opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, Thomas\u27s Dissenting Opinion in Grutter may eventually be looked to when the majority Opinion is written that ends affirmative action programs once and for all. Third, in Grutter, Thomas was presented with yet another opportunity to return to the compassion he championed during his Senate confirmation hearings. Thomas refused this opportunity. Finally, evaluating Thomas\u27s Grutter dissent will serve to cement his race jurisprudence, as Grutter likely represents one of the most important race case that will come before the Supreme Court during Thomas\u27s tenure. The attached article carefully reviews Thomas\u27s dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger and examines the originalist rationale that he seemingly abandons in writing his saucy and sarcastic dissent