We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The author’s study with the federal courts and federal jurisdiction. The relationship between the federal and state court system is one of the most intellectually interesting and presumptuous of him to say that the American system of judicial federalism provides any answers to the unfortunate situation which Yugoslavia find intself in today. However, he hopes that he had succeeded in stating some of system to be such an interesting topic for teaching and scholarship. The development of the US federal jurisdiction dates from the civil war and US Constitution, which limit the state’s sovereignty to the federal government. The legal remedies for the delegation and control of the state’s judicial system are known as Right of Removal and the US Supreme Court review of the state court decision acts. In view of residual jurisdiction of the state courts, except the exclusive federal jurisdiction, it is clear that the citizens own their sovereign rights and liabilities in their states, besides the questions of federal significance, which they accomplish at the federal levels. However, the federal jurisdiction has Congressional limitations and alternative authority for the Diversity of citizenship, so that ali relevant facts have to be included in the court’s decision.
More...
Although there is no satisfactory philosophical answer to the question of a thorough (and, thus, generally acceptable) founding, namely justifying of norms, values, decisions or choices - one contemporary attempt to settle the problem is the introduction of an universal auditorium, as a criterion of their reasonableness. The present article is dedicated to making operational the idea of bringing these to senses. First of all, the notion of universal auditorium is elaborated, to be followed by treating the way of its making operational in terms of law in so - called universal international law, and first of all in the United Nations Organisation and in its most significant enactments relating to human rights. This may serve as a criterion of bringing to senses the legal orders of individual states, namely of raising criticism of their positive law solutions. This analysis, however, is not sufficient if one disregards the political - legal environment where such norms have to be implemented and created.
More...
This paper examines neutrality, understood as a necessary requirement for law’s legitimacy. In the conventional, liberal formulation of it, the law must neither favor nor depend on any particular conception of the good. Taking into consideration the critique that the principle of neutrality has received, from within liberalism as well as from rival perspectives, the authors search for an alternative. The proposed solution is the Model of Neutrality as Non-Arbitrariness (the MNN), according to which the making and application of law must seek equilibrium within different justifying reasons that are backing the particular law in question. As such, neutrality under the MNN is conceived as a virtue of legislators and judges which allows them to weigh competing justifications in a manner that appears as best in a particular case.
More...