Regarding judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that, “It is empha... ... middle of paper ... ...es his point by saying that it does not specify the extent of those powers. Personally, I believe that judicial review is a necessity in order to preserve the constitution. Thus, I disagree with Gibson’s opinion. Although I understand the content of his words and why he believes them, but I think a very specific power such as judicial review is necessary to check the other branches. The judiciary cannot abuse the power but the legislative and executive branches can create laws that are abusive to the powers given to them by the constitution.
In some situations, deviating from the law established overseas may bring the most justice. The value of international judgements International law is a wealth of expertise and history. The common law in New Zealand is slow to develop due to the limited number of cases that the Supreme Court can hear. By looking at how courts in other jurisdictions have handled similar cases, this can be mitigated. Simply put: the more cases there are, the greater the
The UK courts obtain the power to decide whether the governmental authority has acted ‘Ultra Vires’. This ensures they do not act outside limits of their legal power, this includes both formal and substantive grounds. Both proportionality and natural justice are crucial components for judicial review of a case and therefore, formal and substantive elements are required to set out laws. There seems to be no compelling reason that this may not also be the most salient solution for the rule of law, however in my opinion, good procedures are not as rewarding as the laws content when it concerns the publics lives and
In addition, any lawsuit that their Parliament wishes to pass, must comply with the constitution. In certain predicaments those without this supreme law document have the ability to choose not to comply with laws that are transcribed in their constitution. An example being the allowance of passage for a new bill that does not fully comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In relation to normal stature more permanence is given to supreme legislation however, controversial legislation can be exceedingly difficult to pass, though not impossible. In parallel to the USA, New Zealand’s current constitution is neither supreme nor entrenched, a trait inherited from Great Britain.
The judiciary can perform checks in the form of judicial review on the legislative, offer recommendations... ... middle of paper ... ...iary is given equal power as these branches it could be argued as an infringement on democracy in New Zealand, as the judiciary is not elected. Hence this would change the nature and role of the judiciary. In Conclusion, the creation of a supreme law constitution enforced by the judiciary would undoubtedly enhance the judiciary’s present role and powers and its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. In contrast to the current unwritten constitution, it would create the constitution as a supreme constitution thereby appointing the Judiciary with the power to hold the other branches of government accountable to it. This would act as a stark contrast to the current system where the judiciary stands as the weakest branch of the judiciary, unable to hold the other branches to the constitution and Bill of Rights act, only recommend and review.
Finally I will comment on the direction in which the law appears to be taking privacy in New Zealand. Legislative Background New Zealand has a number of enactments that deal with the individual’s privacy and while it has been said there is no established ‘right’ to privacy in New Zealand it is still clearly a concept that is highly valued. The Government ratified broad international agreements that protect the individuals right to privacy, yet domestically has enacted the New Zealand Bill of Rights from which a right to privacy was apparently deliberately left out. This is somewhat unusual given privacy is the underpinning value for many of the Bills established rights, for example ‘the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure’. The principle piece of legislation dealing specifically with privacy is the Privacy Act 1993 (and related Privacy Codes).
The most distinctive part of New Zealand’s constitution, when compared to other nations, is that our constitution is not a supreme form of law. The idea of a supreme law constitution is that when ordinary law conflicts with constitutional law it can be declared void by the courts. Codifying all individual constitutional documents and conventions into a supreme law constitutional, would result in a greater check on legislative power. This would result as the Judiciary could strike down legislation if it did not align with the constitutional principles. The role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law that the Legislative branch of government makes.
International Law Name: Course: Date: International law is ideally made by sovereign states to be used by sovereign states. International law concerns itself with matters such as diplomacy, state territorial integrity and military issues. The effectiveness of any international law is mainly facilitated by the participation of individual countries in making it (Schreuer 2011, 4). Countries are unlikely to concern themselves with legal norms unless it is within their interests to do so and they have a willingness to adopt these norms as laws. However, this means that many international laws are blocked or delayed by states if it interferes with their interests.
The rule of law as formulated by Raz adds little to a modern democracy as it could apply to both democratic and non-democratic states. The substantive rule of law is unworkable in a system such as exists in the United Kingdom, where the legislature is legally sovereign. Indeed, as both versions of the rule of law have been and could be ignored by the legislature, it is pointless to take the rule of law seriously as a feature of the United Kingdom’s constitution. Discuss the above statement and outline whether you agree or disagree with this. You must support your answer with reference to academic and judicial opinion, as well as developing your own argument.
In this sense, international law supports the expansion of soft power more than that of hard power. I would also like to borrow the United Nation’s (UN) definition of international law, which is that “international law defines the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries” (United nations global, n.d). Arguably, international law hampers the pursuit of hard power as it presents obstacles which aim to curb aggression and ... ... middle of paper ... ... economic sanctions and poorer relations, are more dire then commonly perceived and could handicap a state’s expansion of both soft and hard power. Thus, it would be prudent to adhere to international law, or at least, give the impression of doing so. Hence, this highlights the importance of international law in foreign policy and the pursuit of both hard and soft power.