Jurisdiction has always been ubiquitous in the international legal system. Lassa Oppenheim describes jurisdiction essentially “as the state’s right to regulate conduct or the consequences of events.” Jurisdiction is multi-faceted, one area that has been the cause of controversy amongst many academics is universal jurisdiction. Defining universal jurisdiction has been problematic to say the least. Roger O’Keefe in his article alluded to universal jurisdiction as “the assertion of criminal jurisdiction
Jurisdiction in the Global Internet Age E-Jurisdiction (or the lack thereof)… At the beginning of a new century, the Internet Revolution is upon us. At the turn of the last century, when the Revolution was Industrial instead of Virtual, the courts and legislatures struggled to enact policies to keep pace with the changing times and technologies. Laws governing labor practices, trade practices, anti-trust regulations, and even intellectual property all developed in reaction to the surges of
Immunity from Sate Jurisdiction International law specifies that 'the jurisdiction of a state within its territory is complete and absolute'[1]. However, it is identified that certain categories of persons and bodies acting in the public interest are entitled to immunities and privileges from the exercise of the State jurisdiction. In April 1984 WPC Fletcher, a British policewoman was killed, as a result of shots being fired from the Libyan Bureau. The incident created great anger and
The term jurisdiction refers to the power bestowed upon courts to deliver judgments and make rulings. There are two types of jurisdictions that a court of law is required to have in order to listen to a case efficiently. These are subject matter and personal jurisdictions. Subject matter jurisdiction is said to be the court’s power to determine a case depending on the cause and the subject of dispute. On the other hand, personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to look into a case based on the
Dred Scott Case Justice vs Jurisdiction "Justice v. Jurisdiction, Research Paper on Dred Scott v. Sandford" Described as being poorly educated, indigent, feeble, and ill prone, Dred Scott seemed consistent with society's definition of the black slave. However, he was an articulate man who changed our society and American standards. Married to Harriet Scott with four (4) children, Dred wanted to provide his family with a sense of dignity and decency that a free man's status would warrant him
Universal jurisdiction also called the universality principle enables nations to prosecute offenders of certain crimes, even though they don’t have any nexus to the crime, the alleged offender and the victim. As a concept it was historically developed on the maritime legal principle of hostis humani generis (enemy of the humankind) to address the issue of piracy, which caused considerable destruction of international trade. However, today this principle is applied to prosecute perpetrators of crimes
indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence. In order to do that, first, the essay will define what understand by “jurisdiction” and the elements of the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Next, it analyses some key decisions and advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and the European regional system in order to prove that extraterritoriality jurisdiction is already applicable and therefore
Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and the Crime of Aggression. The aim of the Statute as a great compromise between really different states of the world with different interests was to establish a legitimate international organ of criminal jurisdiction to combat massive international crimes. The ultimate goal of the Court is to establish justice and anything distracting the Court and interrupts its function should be dealt with judicial treatment to protect the mission of the Court. In order
to avoid the jury. ii. Admiralty cases can’t be removed from state to federal courts. a. but most admiralty cases can be brought in state courts unless qualify under diversity. b. But federal admiralty law will be applied. iii. Jurisdiction arises under: a. 28 USC 1331: federal question b. 28 USC 1332: diversity c. 28 USC 1333: admiralty & maritime. iv. BUT, Congress didn’t choose to enact substantive law in the statutes – left to courts. v. Courts mainly address
action in regards of IGRA violations have had little success. Conflicts between Indian casino and patron over gaming issues fall under jurisdiction of the tribe in exercise of tribal sovereignty. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires compacts between the tribes and states to govern the conduct of Indian casino gaming, and those compacts allocate jurisdiction between tribe and state. The Act authorized tribes to bring an action in federal court against states. Tribe could enforce the states to
injury the mortality rate increases exponentially every fifteen to twenty minutes. The state of emergency medical care currently practiced in this community involves an excellent pre-hospital phase under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles City paramedics. The paramedics have jurisdiction of about thirty-five emergency rooms to which their patients can be transferred after beginning medical treatment at the scene of the accident. This is where the problem occurs. To provide the best possible emergency
Hierarchy is the term given to the system in which the Courts of Australia are split into different levels to deal with different matters by different levels of severity. The jurisdiction of courts’ is very important due to the fact that different courts deal with special matters differently from another court. The term jurisdiction means “a. The right and power to interpret and apply the law.” This means that the different courts of Australia deal with matters according to severity and relevance of that
State the title of the article, the name of the publication in which it appeared and the date of publication. The article I have chosen titled “Sommet leader Brian Whitfield sentenced to 20 years” was published by The Tennessean on June 8, 2015. Provide a summary of the news story, with emphasis on the facts. A previous leader of The Sommet Group, Brian Whitfield, was accused and found guilty after a plea of not guilty to stealing money from clients and the government in the amount of $20
intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. They also claim that the act infringes on property and civil rights that are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parliament contends that the government of Canada is within its rights to protect public safety. Pro-gun control organizations, police chiefs and the City of Toronto also back the Firearms Act. The enacting of the Firearms Act by the government of Canada is legitimately constitutional and is within the jurisdiction of Parliament as
Cybercrime The article “What makes cybercrime laws so difficult to enforce” discusses the various difficulties encountered by authority powers attempting to track down criminals that use the internet to carry out immoral actions. Shinder (2011) highlights the naivety of legislators and their inability to foresee what the increased availability of internet access would mean for policing agencies. Unfamiliar and therefore unopposed forms of crime were developed much more rapidly than could be anticipated
Introduction The establishment of International Criminal Tribunals greatly impacts both monist and dualist states reshaping their national law. The affect on national law directly affects the behavior of states. This new and evolving legal dynamics substantially alters the landscape of international relations and it is of vital importance that its impact is inspected. The fact that nationals and non-state actors are becoming agents in shaping international legal process touches upon very nature of
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."-14th Amendment. Both of these basically
be illustrated, with a primary focus on circumstances creating a reasonable doubt. To better understand this concept one should apply the conditions of this case in a modern setting. If Orestes were called forward, on the same charges under the jurisdiction of a United States court of law, would he have been acquitted? Furthermore, would similar circumstances be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt? By my estimation, I would suggest so. It is easy to assume that democratic legal standards (standards
the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program
percent of inmates on death row are Black, Hispanic or from another minority group (Eddlem, 2002). Yet another reason for abolishing capital punishment is that the death penalty is often applied at random. “Politics, quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is committed are more... ... middle of paper ... ... it achieves justice. In my opinion, people who commit heinous crimes against humanity should be executed. Regardless of cost or how long it takes I believe that putting these